ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

ENERGY AND CLIMATE CHANGE

The Secretary of State was asked—

Renewable Energy Infrastructure

Nicola Blackwood: What recent assessment he has made of the incentives available for investment in renewable energy infrastructure.

Nicky Morgan: What recent assessment he has made of the incentives available for investment in renewable energy infrastructure.

Christopher Huhne: The current financial mechanisms to incentivise renewable electricity are the renewables obligation and the feed-in tariff scheme. We are currently undertaking reviews of the RO banding and the FIT scheme, and the renewable heat incentive is due to go ahead this year. The Government have also set aside up to £60 million of direct support for the development of offshore wind manufacturing at port sites in English assisted areas.

Nicola Blackwood: There are some fantastic community-led renewable projects in my constituency, including Oncore—Oxford North Community Renewables—which is a project to build solar panels on Cherwell school in north Oxford. However, despite the fact that we all recognise that such projects are vital to our efforts to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels, they often struggle to raise sustainable funds. Will the Secretary of State tell me how he expects projects such as the green investment bank to help support community renewables projects such as these?

Christopher Huhne: Access to finance is clearly a major issue for projects such as those in my hon. Friend’s constituency, and the green investment bank will certainly play a role eventually. Our FIT scheme reforms have focused on ensuring that money goes to community schemes rather than City speculators. The banks are increasingly taking a favourable attitude to this matter and finance is increasingly available from the high street banks. I am pleased therefore to confirm that yesterday the Treasury opened a consultation on the provision of other finance and on ensuring that enterprise investment
	schemes and venture capital trusts investing in FIT schemes through community-interest companies, co-operative societies and community benefit societies continue to qualify for improved support, as will those generating electricity from micro-hydro schemes. I hope that this change will focus investment on schemes that benefit local communities.

Nicky Morgan: I have written previously to the Secretary of State on behalf of Evance, a manufacturer of small wind turbines in my constituency. One of the main issues it has raised has been the need for clear guidance for planners on how to deal with small wind systems. Will he tell me what discussions he and his ministerial colleagues have had with the Department for Communities and Local Government on this issue? In particular, would any guidance include specification of acceptable noise levels for these small—less than 50 kW—wind systems?

Christopher Huhne: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this important issue. It is a matter for DCLG, as she implied, although I have discussed it with that Department, and I expect an announcement shortly that I hope will indicate that some progress has been made.

David Hanson: Will the Secretary of State tell us precisely what percentage of the respondents to the recent FIT consultation supported the Government’s view? What assessment has he made of the impact of the review on manufacturers such as Kingspan in Hollywell in my constituency and Sharp in Wrexham, which he visited and lauded but has now pulled the rug from under?

Christopher Huhne: I respect the right hon. Gentleman for standing up for his constituency—I would expect nothing less—but the responses to the FIT consultation were not as binary as he suggests. People did not give yes or no answers. We had to take a decision on the FIT programme for a simple reason, which was that, unfortunately, the planning that went into the announcement assumed that there would be no large-scale solar projects for three years. If the right hon. Gentleman, who was a Minister in the previous Government—as I well remember—is prepared to take responsibility for those assumptions, I would be very pleased, but sadly I am not. We have had to amend those assumptions and ensure that we have an affordable scheme that can provide steady growth—

Mr Speaker: Order. I am extremely obliged to the Secretary of State.

Gloria De Piero: Underground heat pumps and solar panels will become a fact of life for us all in the not-so-distant future. What are the Government doing to help areas such as mine—former coalfield areas—to play a part in manufacturing these things so that once again we can power Britain and the world?

Christopher Huhne: We have seen enormous growth in low-carbon goods and services. In fact, the sector now employs 910,000 people across the UK economy so it is no longer a cottage industry—it is serious stuff. In relation to the green deal, particularly some of the kit being manufactured for it, we are in discussions with
	manufacturers to try to ensure that they are thinking about the scale on which the green deal will operate, because obviously if the market is relatively small, there will not be the economies of scale that can get prices down and the opportunities up. I am determined—

Mr Speaker: Order. We must make some progress at Question Time.

Andrew George: My right hon. Friend mentioned the review of the renewables obligation certificates. He will be aware of the great opportunity presented by the wave hub project located off the north coast of my constituency. In respect of the review, however, what reassurances can he give me and the House that there will be an even playing field north and south of the Scottish border?

Christopher Huhne: The devolved Administration—the Scottish Government—have the ability to vary ROC support somewhat, which they do in the case of advanced marine renewables. We are determined on both sides of the border to see progress on those technologies, because they have enormous potential in the years to come, and I am sure that there is enough to satisfy those both south and north of the border.

Government Carbon Emissions

Jennifer Willott: What progress he has made on his objective to reduce central Government carbon emissions by 10%.

Christopher Huhne: The Prime Minister announced on 14 May 2010 that this would be the greenest Government ever and that central Government would lead by example, by reducing their emissions by 10% within 12 months. I am pleased to announce that the Government have achieved that target, reducing emissions by 13.8%— I think I am entitled to round that up to 14%—using weather-corrected data. Never before have central Government achieved such a reduction in such a short space of time.

Jennifer Willott: As the Government have done so well and surpassed their 10% target, may I encourage the Secretary of State to be ambitious when setting central Government’s next carbon reduction goals? Will he work with business and the rest of the public sector to ensure that they achieve the same scale of reductions?

Christopher Huhne: I am very pleased to confirm that the Prime Minister has announced a new five-year carbon reduction target of 25%, to ensure that we continue to drive down carbon and energy use in the Government. By focusing attention on the issue among decision makers, we can help to move the whole country along. We need to practise what we preach, and we will.

Barry Gardiner: Can the Secretary of State please tell the House what the exact level of carbon emissions from the parliamentary estate was previously, so that we can be absolutely clear what it is now, after the 13.8% reduction, or have the figures been estimated and banded?

Christopher Huhne: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would be shocked if I attempted to take responsibility for the parliamentary estate, which is clearly up to the House of Commons. This issue is strictly about central Government, not the parliamentary estate, but I would urge Mr Speaker, using all his great influence, to ensure that the parliamentary estate is performing just as well as central Government.

James Gray: I warmly congratulate the Government on more than achieving their target, which stands in stark contrast with previous Governments. None the less, at a glance around the governmental estate—and the parliamentary estate, too—we see lights burning all night long, with no use of energy-efficient lighting. We also see the ambient temperature of Ministry of Defence buildings, such as the one in my constituency near Corsham, at 25°, which means that civil servants have to sit with their jackets off, because otherwise it would be too warm. Surely we should get our lights off at night and get the temperature down, so that people feel cold in the office and put sweaters on.

Christopher Huhne: I hesitate to say this, but I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. We have set an ambitious target and there is more work to do. Whether that means getting people to put on woolly jumpers or getting them to turn the lights off, we will do it, and we shall continue our efforts.

Employment and Skills (Energy Sector)

Nicholas Dakin: What discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills on skills and employment in the energy sector.

Catherine McKinnell: What discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills on developing skills in the low-carbon sector.

Charles Hendry: My Department works closely with the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills to promote skills and employment in the energy sector. The Budget announced £180 million of funding for 50,000 additional adult apprenticeships, and we announced in March that at least 100,000 green deal apprentices could receive Government funding towards their training. There are many opportunities, with the new build nuclear programme alone expected to create 30,000 high-skilled new jobs nationally.

Nicholas Dakin: What steps are the Government and the Minister’s Department taking to ensure that jobs in the energy industry supply chain are developed in this country and not abroad?

Charles Hendry: I was very pleased indeed to have the chance to meet the hon. Gentleman, his local authorities and other Members of Parliament from Humberside to talk about the immense potential in those areas for developing the supply chain for the offshore wind sector. That is why we have put in place a £60 million programme
	to attract manufacturing investment to those sites, and it is encouraging to see the number of manufacturers looking to the United Kingdom.

Catherine McKinnell: The Minister may be aware of my interest in apprenticeships. I welcome the increased number of apprenticeships, although I am concerned that it does not go far enough. What reassurances can he provide that there is a joined-up approach across Departments to ensure that apprenticeship places are created in low-carbon areas of our economy and regions such as the north-east which have real growth potential?

Charles Hendry: I hope the hon. Lady will be aware of the document “Skills for Sustainable Growth”, which was produced last year. It addresses these matters so as to ensure that we can address apprenticeships issues in a more flexible and responsive way, enabling us to react to demand as it evolves in the system. We very much want this to happen in areas such as the north-east, and the local enterprise partnerships and local authorities will have an important role to play in ensuring that we take a joined-up approach to this.

Henry Smith: Will my hon. Friend join me in congratulating a company in my constituency, Trade Skills 4U, which has taken on hundreds of apprentices? In particular, it has retrained former members of the armed forces to give them skills relating to solar energy and heating. Does he also share my perplexity at Labour voting in Committee against the fourth carbon budget?

Charles Hendry: My hon. Friend makes an important point. I absolutely welcome the work that is going on to retrain people who have one skill set that might be relevant to the low-carbon economy. We see the potential in the green deal for 100,000 jobs in that area by 2015, and perhaps 250,000 jobs in the longer term. The situation on the fourth carbon budget was even more extraordinary than my hon. Friend suggests, in that Labour Members voted three ways: some voted yes, some voted no, and others abstained.

Stephen Mosley: Given that some 70% of the UK’s nuclear work force are due to retire by 2025, at the same time as we are planning to build some 16 GW of new nuclear capacity, what action is my hon. Friend taking to plug the nuclear skills gap?

Charles Hendry: We are working closely with other Government Departments, specifically the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, and the National Skills Academy for Nuclear has offered 1,200 apprenticeships in the nuclear sector in the past year, along with 22 foundation degrees and 2,500 short-term courses in the nuclear sector. This is an area in which industry is rising up to the challenge, and our universities and further education colleges are all working together very constructively.

Luciana Berger: Further to the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell), we were absolutely delighted, during the Energy Bill’s Committee stage, when the Government did not reject
	Labour’s amendment to establish a green deal apprenticeship scheme as part of the green deal. That kind of scheme will aid employers in the energy and low-carbon sectors who have a shortage of skills in their work force, but most importantly, green deal apprenticeships will give young people a route into a long-term career. However, the Minister has since indicated that the Government might seek to change these proposals on Report. Will he now guarantee that he will keep Labour’s green deal apprenticeship scheme and not water it down or remove it from the Bill?

Charles Hendry: We always seek to bring absolute delight to the hon. Lady. We were delighted to find among the batch of amendments that she tabled one that we could endorse and support, although we are looking at the nature of that proposal to see whether it delivers exactly what we want and whether we could improve it still further.

Carbon Emissions (2020)

Anne McIntosh: What representations he has received on his objectives for the reduction of carbon emissions by 2020; and if he will make a statement.

Christopher Huhne: The Government have committed to reduce UK emissions by 34% by 2020. The Committee on Climate Change confirmed on 30 June that we are on track to meeting this target. Internationally, the Government remain committed to moving to a 30% EU target. I have had numerous discussions with my EU colleagues and a wide variety of stakeholders in recent months on the importance of the EU low-carbon transition, including a move to 30%.

Anne McIntosh: Given the agreement, and the ambition of the targets, what reassurance can the Secretary of State give the House today that businesses will be able to meet those targets without incurring ever higher energy bills or having to pass on the costs to their consumers, who might not be able to afford them?

Christopher Huhne: We are working hard with the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills on a package to help energy-intensive industries to ensure that, for example, when we build much of the important energy infrastructure that we are going to be building over the next 10 years, the demand for steel and aluminium stays in the United Kingdom. That is a crucial part of what we are doing. My hon. Friend should not forget that we are also seeking an enormous increase in demand for British manufacturing as a result of the need to replace our energy infrastructure, and that investment levels will be running at double the normal level. That will give an enormous shot in the arm to manufacturing.

Fiona O'Donnell: The Government are facing both ways on this issue. Can the Secretary of State tell me whether the Tory MEPs who last week voted against an increase to 30% in the EU commitment to reducing emissions by 2020 are part of the “greenest Government ever”?

Christopher Huhne: Perhaps it is now the policy of Labour Members to incorporate Members of the European Parliament into this Chamber, but until that happens—

Chris Bryant: Well, you got in here!

Christopher Huhne: I got in here separately on the basis of an election. Let me point out to the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) that when I left the European Parliament to come here, I remember keeping a league table on the three main parties in this Chamber whose MEPs agreed with the policy at Westminster, and I am not at all sure that my Conservative colleagues would be the most embarrassed by it. On a number of occasions, then and now, Labour MEPs do not necessarily take the same line as Labour Members in Westminster.

Energy Supply (Decarbonisation)

James Morris: What estimate he has made of the number of jobs which could be created as a result of his plans for decarbonisation of energy supply.

Christopher Huhne: The Government have not estimated the impact of the decarbonisation of energy on employment levels, but we have substantial opportunities—for example, offshore wind has the potential to employ a further 70,000 workers by 2020, bringing benefits to the UK of £6 billion to £8 billion a year. About 16 GW of new build nuclear could create up to 30,000 new jobs and equates to investment of around £50 billion, with the construction of each reactor delivering investment equivalent to that for the 2012 Olympics. We should not forget either the impact of the green deal in the current Energy Bill, which is forecast to increase the number of jobs in the insulation sector from 27,000 to 100,000 by 2015. This is a jobs-rich, green-growth programme.

James Morris: While I welcome the potential for new jobs in the green economy, does the Secretary of State agree that we need to strike a balance between generating new jobs and protecting jobs in the existing manufacturing sector, especially in the black country, part of which I represent, which has manufacturing businesses with high-energy intensiveness—Somers Forge being one particular example? Does he agree that we need to strike a balance so that we do not undermine the competitiveness of our manufacturing industry?

Christopher Huhne: I absolutely assure my hon. Friend on that. As I mentioned previously, we have a working group with BIS looking exactly at what help is necessary for the energy-intensive industries. It is also worth pointing out that, particularly when we are emerging from such a deep recession, it is jobs in new industries, rather than merely the recovery of the old industries, that tend to drive the overall recovery. That was the story of the 1930s: we did not regain our prosperity by reversing the declines that had happened in the old industries that had caused the recession; we built entirely new industries. The low-carbon goods and services industry offers us enormous potential in that respect.

Albert Owen: To consolidate and maximise the benefits of the low-carbon economy, does the Secretary of State agree that rather than having a broad concept of enterprise zones, we actually need to create energy zones so that we can maximise the skills base in those areas and transfer the skills from existing downgraded industries into the energy sector?

Christopher Huhne: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that industries that share a skills base and a knowledge base often tend to cluster. As I understand it, however, that is not the enterprise zone concept. It is certainly the case that, through the ports infrastructure improvement programme, for example, we are encouraging the clustering of some of the new technologies in offshore wind and elsewhere.

Community Energy Projects

Chris White: What steps he is taking to promote community energy projects in co-operation with public sector organisations.

Paul Flynn: What recent steps he has taken to support community renewable energy projects.

Gregory Barker: The coalition agreement includes a strong commitment to encourage community ownership of renewable energy projects. We have taken a range of steps to deliver on this commitment. These include removing barriers to the development of community energy projects, setting up a website to provide practical support to communities and working directly with local government to promote best practice.

Chris White: In my constituency, Warwick hospital and Community Energy Warwickshire, a local social enterprise, have teamed up to put solar panels on the hospital’s buildings. Given the amount of property owned by the public sector, does my hon. Friend not agree that we should do everything we can to encourage this kind of partnership? Will he meet members of Community Energy Warwickshire and Warwick hospital to see how we can replicate this kind of project across the country?

Gregory Barker: I would be delighted to meet my hon. Friend and his constituents. This is exactly the kind of project delivered through exactly the kind of partnership that we need to see more of. The coalition is working on a programme including a range of measures to ensure that we drive this forward. I look forward to explaining those in detail to my hon. Friend when I meet him and his constituents.

Paul Flynn: How can community energy projects be advanced if the Minister’s Department is collaborating with the nuclear industry to lie about the true effects of Fukushima, as described in leaked e-mails published by The Guardian? Is it true that an official in his Department wrote to EDF and the other companies saying, “We must get in, and we must make sure that the anti-nuclear chaps and chapesses do not fill the space with the truth”?

Gregory Barker: I simply do not accept the hon. Gentleman’s comments. I have absolute trust in my Department, and the suggestion that there has been some Fukushima cover-up is absurd nonsense.

Luciana Berger: Far from being a champion of community energy projects, the Government seem to be intent on punishing them. In June the Minister cut feed-in tariff funding for schemes generating more than 50 kW. The Secretary of State said a moment ago that he wanted to make feed-in tariffs affordable, but cutting them for medium-scale school, hospital and community projects makes them unviable.
	The Minister is aware that we disagree fundamentally with his decision, and our view is shared by the solar industry. Howard Johns, chairman of the Solar Trade Association, has said that the move would cripple the UK’s fledgling solar panel industry, adding:
	“Crushing solar makes zero economic sense for UK plc because it will lose us major manufacturing opportunities, jobs and global competitiveness.”
	This is yet another example of Government policy damaging our economy and cutting support for industry, rather than generating jobs and growth. Will the Minister admit that he got it wrong, and that he should think again?

Gregory Barker: The people who got it wrong were the people in the Labour party who were in government and created this programme. They know full well that the model was fundamentally not fit for purpose. The hon. Lady and her Front-Bench colleague, the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier), decline to name a figure, but how much more money would they pump into a scheme that would be paid for from people’s bills?
	If we had left the scheme unreformed, more than £3 billion would have been added to the cost in the form of high subsidies. We are committed to rolling out solar energy, which is a dynamic technology of the future, but we must do it responsibly. We cannot do it by providing the open-cheque subsidies that would be encouraged by the irresponsible attitude of Opposition Front-Benchers.

Electricity Market Reform

Zac Goldsmith: What recent assessment he has made of the potential contribution of demand-side measures to electricity market reform.

Gregory Barker: Demand-side measures have huge potential to help us to reduce emissions and cut costs. The coalition’s green deal will be the most ambitious demand-side programme since the second world war, but we must go even further. Our proposals for energy market reform will drive radical new ways of reducing demand on an industrial scale, and will allow demand reduction measures to compete on an equal footing with new generation for the first time.

Zac Goldsmith: I am hugely encouraged by the Minister’s answer. Will he bring forward detailed proposals on how energy efficiency will be supported by the EMR?
	Knowing, as he does, the importance of EMR and of public finance, emissions reductions and energy security, will he commit himself to pressing for the maximum possible ambition?

Gregory Barker: I can assure my hon. Friend, who is an expert on these matters, that there will be the maximum possible ambition in the EMR documents that we will publish next week, but there is much more work to be done. We will need to consult the industry. Demand reduction is not like alternative forms of energy generation. We are creating a new model, and different types of indices and accounting will be necessary. We will need a robust system of measurement as well as the market mechanism. I have absolutely no doubt that we can crack it, and I can assure my hon. Friend of our ambition and determination to do so.

Michael Weir: Last week I received my gas bill, which showed that my consumption had been 25% lower than it had been during the same period last year. At the same time, however, the direct debit payments requested by the company were rising substantially. How confident is the Minister that demand-led measures will help hard-pressed consumers?

Gregory Barker: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his heroic efforts to reduce consumption. He is right: the best way of ensuring less exposure to rising gas prices, oil prices and fossil fuel prices generally is to reduce consumption. The green deal—the most ambitious roll-out of home energy efficiency since the second world war—will be a massive bonus for all our homes, and we hope to have applied it to 26 million homes by 2030.

Energy Saving Trust

Meg Munn: What assessment he has made of the performance of the Energy Saving Trust; and if he will make a statement.

Gregory Barker: The Energy Saving Trust has helped to deliver substantial carbon savings and has assisted in Government energy efficiency objectives. However, the step change in ambition that will come with the roll-out of the green deal will include the Government ending dependence on just one monopoly provider and opening up the market for advice and best practice to dynamic competition.

Meg Munn: I agree that the Energy Saving Trust has done great work. It has been publicly funded and it has provided a lot of advice and resources for people, so why will the Minister not ensure that all that publicly funded advice and resource information published to date continues to be available to the public through an organisation that will become a social enterprise?

Gregory Barker: There will continue to be publicly funded information, particularly on the green deal. We believe that the public should get the very best information and that the way to achieve that is by opening up the provision of advice to competition, rather than by just continuing with one monopoly provider. The Energy
	Saving Trust has done good work in the past, and we certainly anticipate that it will be part of the tender for the new provision of advice under the green deal.

Domestic Energy Bills

Gregg McClymont: What recent discussions he has had on domestic energy bills with representatives of the six largest energy companies.

Bill Esterson: What recent discussions he has had on domestic energy bills with representatives of the six largest energy companies.

Barbara Keeley: What recent discussions he has had on domestic energy bills with representatives of the six largest energy companies.

Christopher Huhne: Department of Energy and Climate Change Ministers and officials regularly meet energy suppliers to discuss market issues, and this afternoon I will be hosting an energy summit for small, non-big-six suppliers, to discuss the barriers they face to competing in the market, with a view to making sure it is as easy as possible for them to enter it.

Gregg McClymont: Bringing the Secretary of State back to the issue of the big six energy companies, do they do enough to make vulnerable customers aware of their potential eligibility for a social tariff, and if they do not do enough, what will the Government do to make sure vulnerable customers are made aware of their potential eligibility?

Christopher Huhne: The hon. Gentleman raises an important question, especially as we approach the winter months. As he may know, we have put the warm home discount scheme on a legislative basis and it is absolutely crucial that our targeting efforts continue. We are doing a lot of work, not least with the Department for Work and Pensions, to try to ensure that we can identify the people who will be most in need, and of course the green deal, which will start next year, will prioritise those in fuel poverty so that we tackle the root causes of the problem and do not merely seek to apply a sticking plaster—

Mr Speaker: Order. We are grateful to the Secretary of State for his answer.

Bill Esterson: The Secretary of State did not answer the point about the big six, so I will give him another chance. We have some of the highest energy prices in Europe. What action is he taking with the big six to ensure that electricity and gas prices in this country are fair for those whose living standards are being squeezed by his Government?

Christopher Huhne: The hon. Gentleman is incorrect about the comparison with other European countries’ electricity and gas prices. In fact, in both cases our prices are among the lowest. They could certainly be lower, and I am determined to try to make sure that we have the
	maximum competition in the market, because in my experience that is always the best guarantee that the consumer will get the best deal. That is why we want more companies to enter the market, and the electricity market reform will encourage more market entrants on the generator side. That is also why in the long term—

Mr Speaker: Order. I think we have got the thrust, and we are very grateful, but we must have shorter answers. Exchanges are taking too long.

Barbara Keeley: The charity Age UK predicts that rising energy bills will take 250,000 more pensioners into fuel poverty, and those pensioners are under-heating their homes by rationing their consumption of fuel and thereby increasing their exposure to potential ill health, misery and depression. What action will the Secretary of State take to ensure that gas and electricity prices are fairer, something that the Prime Minister promised those pensioners?

Christopher Huhne: As I said in a previous answer, we are doing two very practical things. One is providing the warm homes discount and ensuring that it is made available to those most in need; the other is ensuring that we tackle the root causes of these problems. There is another key issue for anyone facing high energy bills is the need to switch, as I have been trying to encourage them to do. As the hon. Lady may have noticed, customers of the big six who are already on dual fuel direct debit accounts could have saved between £160 and £200 in 2010 merely by getting on to the cheapest tariff available at the beginning of the year.

Robert Smith: But for people to make the savings they need to understand what they are being charged. Does the Secretary of State think that there could be improvements to and reductions in bills and that the market could be opened up if there was more clarity on the tariffs available and less confusion about what things were going to cost?

Christopher Huhne: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend, and what he describes is one of Ofgem’s objectives in tackling this issue. It is also one of the objectives we are introducing in legislation: we want to ensure that people can see on their bill that there will be a clear alternative with the same supplier at the cheapest tariff.

Jo Swinson: The big six seem very quick to put prices up, but they act much more slowly to reduce their prices when wholesale prices fall. There are alternatives out there, such as the social enterprise Ebico, which supplies energy on a not-for-profit basis. What more can the Secretary of State do to make customers aware that they do not need to stick with the big six if they are being ripped off?

Christopher Huhne: The key is to encourage people to act. At the moment 99% of people are with the big six, and they are very unlikely to look at alternatives and to switch. If we can get people to look more comprehensively on a regular basis at alternatives, substantial savings can be made, and we can drive greater competition, we can simplify bills, we can bring more new entrants into
	the market, we can make sure that Ofgem is keeping that market under review and we can give the best possible deal to British consumers.

Meg Hillier: We have heard a lot of warm words from the Secretary of State today, and before the election the Prime Minister made promises about what he would do to tackle energy price increases if he got into power. We have seen these huge price increases, and customers are rightly confused and angry, so what is the Secretary of State going to do right now to tackle this problem? The electricity market reform is all very well, but we could deal with issues relating to doorstep selling and smart meters. There is action that he could take now, so I would like to hear what he is planning to do to help consumers today.

Christopher Huhne: As the hon. Lady knows, much of what we can do takes time, but we have already, in just over a year in government, moved to legislate on the warm homes discount. That means that we will be providing a legal underpinning for the scheme which will help our poorest consumers and those most at risk in fuel poverty. We are also moving on energy saving and moving to increase competition in the market. We are trying to provide assurance and an increased ability to switch, and to simplify tariffs. That is quite an agenda, and none of it was being undertaken by the previous Government.

Energy Efficiency (Housing)

Hugh Bayley: What steps he plans to take to increase energy efficiency in housing.

Gregory Barker: The green deal is our ambitious new programme to transform energy efficiency in housing and in small and medium-sized enterprises. From late 2012, home owners, landlords and tenants will be able to install energy efficiency at no up-front cost, with repayments coming from their energy bill savings. Alongside the green deal, the energy company obligation will offer targeted support to the fuel poor and hard-to-treat homes.

Hugh Bayley: On 30 June, the Committee on Climate Change published its third report to Parliament, saying the following about emissions from residential buildings:
	“Implementation of measures slipped in 2010. There will be a need for a significant acceleration in the pace of emissions reduction if indicators and carbon budgets are to be achieved”.
	Will the Secretary of State therefore table an amendment to the Energy Bill before the summer recess to produce a statutory strategy to ensure that these targets are met?

Gregory Barker: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right: not only did we slip slightly last year in the final throes of the regime that we inherited from the previous Government, but if we had carried on at the rate of progress of the previous Labour Government it would have taken 80 years to retrofit homes to the standard that we hope to achieve in two decades. We will certainly be linking the green deal to our commitments in the climate change legislation, and that is an amendment that we introduced and is included in the Energy Bill.

Joan Ruddock: Despite my best endeavours when I was in the Minister’s job, Londoners received only 5% of the insulation jobs and of the carbon emissions reduction target, even though they make up 15% of the population of England. Will the Minister now introduce a regional obligation on energy companies so that Londoners get a green deal and not a raw deal?

Gregory Barker: The right hon. Lady is right. Unfortunately, the programmes we had under the previous Government were ineffective, particularly in London. We are transforming that with the green deal and the energy company obligation and we shall certainly ensure that the roll-out of energy efficiency measures under the coalition is much fairer and much more ambitious than we saw under the previous Government.

Luciana Berger: Yesterday, a report by uSwitch showed that fuel poverty levels in the UK are spiralling, with 6.3 million households—almost a quarter of all UK homes—now classed as being fuel poor. That highlights the urgent need for energy-efficiency improvements coupled with support from Government. However, in the past year the Government have systematically scrapped support for fuel poor households. We have seen Labour’s Warm Front scheme cut, winter fuel payments reduced by up to £100 and the rejection of many Energy Bill amendments that would have provided extra support to—

Mr Speaker: Order. I am sorry, but we must have a one sentence question straight away.

Luciana Berger: Will the Minister tell us how he will get a grip on this out-of-control fuel poverty situation?

Gregory Barker: The hon. Lady is absolutely right. She will know that under the final five years of the Labour Government, the number of those in fuel poverty rose from 1.5 million to more than 4 million—an absolutely catastrophic record bequeathed to the coalition. We will turn that around with the most ambitious energy-efficiency programme since the second world war and a far more effective way of delivering help to the fuel poor.

Wind Turbines

Chris Heaton-Harris: What steps he plans to take in response to the recommendation to his Department from Hayes McKenzie on the adequacy of guidance to developers and local authorities on best practice in the assessment and rating of noise from wind turbines.

Charles Hendry: The Hayes McKenzie report was published in June and included a range of recommendations. The Institute of Acoustics has agreed to a request from me to set up a working group to take forward these recommendations and develop advice for communities, developers and planners on how best to assess the noise impacts of proposed wind farms in a consistent manner.

Chris Heaton-Harris: I thank the Minister for his reply. Footnote 34 of that report stated that the noise regulations were “inconsistently applied” and recommended better guidance on best practice for developers and planning authorities. Supposedly, the Government are working with the industry to draft that. Until the Government issue that guidance, developers across the UK are taking advantage of the confusion. When will we finally get these recommendations?

Charles Hendry: We have asked the Institute of Acoustics, because of its professionalism in this area, to consider things on a case-by-case basis rather than waiting until the entire report is complete so that we can have as much clarity and consistency as possible at the earliest possible stage.

Lindsay Roy: rose—

Mr Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is asking Question 15.

Carbon Capture and Storage

Lindsay Roy: When he expects to announce a timetable for the additional carbon capture and storage demonstration projects.

Charles Hendry: We expect to launch an accelerated process for the selection of further CCS demonstration projects by the end of the year, when we will set out a detailed timetable. I cannot wait to hear the hon. Gentleman’s supplementary question.

Lindsay Roy: I thank the Minister for his response and, indeed, for his reduced emissions.
	The Government’s claim to be the greenest ever is quickly unravelling. Carbon capture and storage is vital in tackling climate change and to the security of future energy supply, so why are the Government dragging their feet on these vital developments?

Charles Hendry: I simply do not recognise that description. We have given more money than any Government anywhere in the world to a single carbon capture project—£1 billion—and we have the most ambitious programme: when countries such as Norway and Holland are letting theirs slip backwards, Britain’s is still on track. We aim to deliver four projects by 2020, and the hon. Gentleman should celebrate that success because of the jobs it will bring to his constituents, among others.

Carbon Floor Price Mechanism

Jessica Morden: If his Department will undertake an impact assessment of the effect of the carbon floor price mechanism on the competitiveness of energy-intensive industries.

Gregory Barker: An assessment of the impacts of the carbon price floor on energy intensive industries is given in HMRC’s tax information and impact note, published alongside the Budget. Electricity bills for an average energy-intensive business are estimated to increase
	by 2% and 6% in 2013 and 2016 respectively as a result of the carbon price floor. However, in the late 2020s electricity bills will be between 2% and 5% lower than would otherwise have been the case.

Jessica Morden: Will the Minister outline what specific issues the Government are considering to prevent energy-intensive industries, such as the steel industry in my constituency, from being disadvantaged in comparison with their global competitors by policies such as the carbon price floor?

Gregory Barker: As the hon. Lady knows, we are meeting not just the steel manufacturers, such as those in her constituency, but a range of energy-intensive industries. I will be meeting the chief executives of several before the House rises for the recess. We are considering a range of measures in conjunction with the Treasury and the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, and in the autumn we will announce the result of that collaboration.

Energy Tariffs

Tony Baldry: If he will take steps to simplify energy tariffs for consumers.

Charles Hendry: Ofgem has just consulted on initial proposals to simplify tariffs and reduce consumer confusion. We welcome Ofgem’s proposals but we think consumers need better information to help them to take control of their consumption and costs, so we are taking forward proposals to require information on bills about a supplier’s cheapest tariff and how the consumer’s consumption compares with that of similar households.

Tony Baldry: Is that going to be this year or next year? When are we going to see simplified, clearer energy bills?

Charles Hendry: We are taking that power in the Energy Bill so that if that does not happen we will in any case have the power within the next few months to deliver on that commitment.

Biogas Technology

Daniel Poulter: What assessment he has made of the potential long-term benefits to the economy of expenditure on biogas technology.

Gregory Barker: The coalition Government are committed to increasing substantially the generation of renewable electricity and heat from waste through anaerobic digestion as well as through advanced conversion technologies such as gasification. Energy from a range of waste products contributes to reducing emissions, enhancing energy security and creating green jobs.

Daniel Poulter: Anaerobic digestion has a number of advantages over other renewable energy technologies. It is generated constantly and can be stored in the grid in the form of gas, but people are having specific problems
	getting through the planning process to support the development of anaerobic digestion plants. What can the Minister do to help with this?

Gregory Barker: Obviously, planning per se is a matter for the Department for Communities and Local Government, but we are keen that where any renewable energy installation occurs in a local community, the local community should share in the wider benefits and the financial benefits, helping them to retain some of the business rates in their community and potentially to take ownership of those assets through community share ownership. There is a whole range of community benefits, but we need to do a better job of explaining them to local residents.

Underground Coal Gasification

Chi Onwurah: What steps he is taking to provide support for underground coal gasification.

Charles Hendry: The Government recognise the potential of underground coal gasification, but the technology is still in its early stages. Our view is that as a carbon capture option it is not a priority to pursue at present. The Coal Authority has lead responsibility, as the freehold owner of our national coal resource, and we continue to monitor developments in the sector.

Chi Onwurah: Newcastle university in my constituency has spun out a start-up, Five-Quarter, to pioneer coal gasification. As the Minister will know, 75% of Britain’s coal reserves are still deep underground, much under the North sea. There is potentially more energy there than in all the natural gas so far extracted from the North sea, so should not the Minister be doing more to help to support this pioneering work?

Charles Hendry: I would be very grateful if the hon. Lady would bring those people from the university to meet me to talk about the work they are doing and how that resource can be developed more effectively. In the past couple of years, 14 licences have been granted for areas close to the shoreline. This is a technology we are keen to watch, but I would be very grateful to learn from the university’s expertise.

Topical Questions

Margot James: If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

Christopher Huhne: Since the last departmental Question Time, the Energy Bill has completed its Committee stage. Yesterday, we announced that Whitehall carbon emissions have been cut by nearly 14% in one year: the Department of Energy and Climate Change achieved an impressive reduction of 21.3% and was only just pipped at the post by the Department for Education. We have also revealed the simplification proposals for the carbon reduction commitment and climate change agreements. We have responded to the Committee on Climate Change’s third annual progress report to
	Parliament, as required under the Climate Change Act 2008, and the fourth carbon budget, covering the period from 2023 to 2027, is now law.

Margot James: There are many energy-intensive companies across the black country producing high-value items for export all over the world. Those companies, which I would not call old industry, are concerned about the carbon price floor and rising energy costs. Can my right hon. Friend advise whether the joint working group between the Treasury, the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills and his Department will meet representatives of the chemicals and aluminium industries to hear their concerns?

Christopher Huhne: I can assure my hon. Friend that I met representatives of the aluminium industry very recently and that we have a regular programme of meeting companies from energy-intensive industries. Indeed, I have also had contact with trade union representatives from energy-intensive industries. We want to see a solution that will ensure those industries are able to thrive within the United Kingdom—she can have my absolute assurance on that. As my colleagues have pointed out, there are discussions under way between BIS, the Treasury and us on this.

Meg Hillier: The green economy road map was promised in April. Where is it?

Christopher Huhne: The green economy road map is under way in the Green Economy Council. It is very important that we get that process of work right, and the hon. Lady will know that getting a cross-governmental road map right is not always the easiest process, but I can assure her that it is under way and that she will be put out of her misery shortly.

Meg Hillier: Whenever the right hon. Gentleman’s Department has to work with other Departments, progress on green issues stalls. We have now learned that the flagship Energy Bill, which the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Wealden (Charles Hendry), has spoken about a great deal today, has been shelved. When will we see the Bill back in the House, and will it delay the start of the green deal?

Christopher Huhne: Obviously the timing of the final stages of the Energy Bill is a matter for the business managers, but we are determined to hold to the October 2012 deadline for the launch of the green deal and are working to ensure that we meet it, despite the congestion we have faced in the House of Commons. I am grateful to the hon. Lady for encouraging us to come forward with further details of our policy and note that she is about to offer what has been billed as the first detailed insight into the Opposition’s thinking on low-carbon policy at a green business event, which I am sure we all look forward to.

Andrew George: As Ministers will know, Cornwall has ambitions to becoming the green peninsula in the UK through renewable energy and therefore warmly welcomes the Government’s proposed marine energy park. What progress has been made on that, what timetable has been set and will
	Ministers ensure that the park provides the vital stimulus so that the wave hub can get going off the north coast of my constituency?

Christopher Huhne: My ministerial colleagues have had regular meetings on this with the green energy programme board and are making good progress. We will continue the workstream to try to accelerate our commitment to low-carbon goods and services in the UK economy. It is a high-growth opportunity, and obviously Cornwall will play an important future role in that.

Ian Lavery: Will the Minister confirm his support for the pioneering plans for underground coal gasification off the Northumberland coast, as described earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central (Chi Onwurah), and agree to meet representatives from the Opposition, from Newcastle university and from Five-Quarter to seek support on the issue?

Charles Hendry: That is exactly the offer I made to the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central (Chi Onwurah). I am keen for that meeting to be as wide as possible, and indeed happy for it to include the entire parliamentary Labour party. This is an important technology and we are keen to understand the expertise that the university has.

Daniel Poulter: The Minister will be aware that farmers and parish councils across Suffolk are keen to contribute to reducing local carbon emissions and supporting renewable energy, but there is great concern about the divisiveness of onshore wind turbines in local communities. What other renewable energy measures is his Department keen to promote on a local level?

Christopher Huhne: There is a whole range of technologies for renewable energy that are appropriate at local level, such as anaerobic digestion, which has already been discussed today. Furthermore, we have introduced £860 million to support a range of renewable heat technologies that will be significant for our future, including air source heat pumps and ground source heat pumps. However, I urge my hon. Friend not to take too jaundiced a view of onshore wind turbines. So far I am the only Member of the House who has been booed on “Any Questions” for pointing out that onshore wind turbines are beautiful, a view I hold to firmly and with which I hope other Members will agree.

Chris Bryant: Many people in Wales are excited about the possibility of shale gas transforming the welsh economy, but equally many of my constituents are worried that the chemicals that are pushed down into the ground will end up in the watercourse and that the fracking process, which has possibly already led to problems in Blackpool, might lead to real problems across the whole of the south Wales coalfield. What will the Minister do to reassure my constituents?

Charles Hendry: The hon. Gentleman raises a very important issue. There is potential for shale gas in the United Kingdom, but only one application is going
	forward, in the north-west, and that is on hold to see whether there is any link between the recent minor earth tremors there and the drilling process. We need to understand fully any issues with that. It is a legitimate technology, but the fluid is 99% water and the majority of the remainder is an inert soapy-type compound—

Several hon. Members: rose —

Charles Hendry: So we have very strong environmental controls on those issues.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Mr Speaker: Order. Ministers are rather testing the knee muscles of a number of right hon. and hon. Members who keep bouncing up and down.

Greg Mulholland: Leeds has a strong case to be considered for the green investment bank, and I look forward to discussing it next week with the Minister, but may I ask for some cross-departmental working? The Department for Business, Innovation and Skills announcement, which appeared to suggest that Leeds was no longer in the running, was not helpful, so can the Minister assure me that it is not a foregone conclusion that the bank will be in London ?

Christopher Huhne: I can assure my hon. Friend that no decisions on the matter have been taken. He is absolutely right that the BIS is the lead Department on it, but decisions are some way off and we have some work to do on scoping and on getting right the detail of the proposals before siting becomes salient.

Diana Johnson: In relation to the Humber ports, the Minister talked earlier about the £60 million that is available for the development of green energy on the portside, but that was an announcement by the previous Labour Government of course. In terms of the job opportunities for my constituents, can he explain the targeted assistance that will be available to Hull?

Charles Hendry: The difference we have made is that that funding is linked specifically to manufacturing projects, rather than to speculative improvements in ports. In addition, £70 million has been brought forward in Scotland, and there will be perhaps more in Wales, so we are very keen to see specific projects. Siemens is looking at the opportunities on the north side of the Humber in Hull, where very good progress is being made, and there will be a fixed formula for establishing exactly how much Government support is going to be available for private sector investment.

Gordon Henderson: What is my right hon. Friend doing to encourage the Danish company Vestas to build a wind turbine factory in my constituency?

Christopher Huhne: I thank my hon. Friend for that question. I am very keen to see Vestas come back to the UK market as a manufacturer. I remember visiting its plant on the Isle of Wight some years ago, and it had a manufacturing facility in Woolston close to my constituency.
	The fact that it is looking at re-establishing itself in the UK is enormously encouraging, and we are in conversations with the company. Clearly, Sheerness as a site is not an assisted area and therefore would not benefit from the subsidies that have been found for assisted areas, but it has other advantages, of which I am sure Vestas is well aware from its discussions with my hon. Friend, and I very much hope that it takes that decision to go forward.

Tom Greatrex: The Secretary of State, in one of his lengthy answers to his interviewer on the “Today” programme, waxed lyrical about the potential of wave and tidal energy. Will he therefore explain why the earmarked amount from the development fund has been reduced from £50 million to £20 million, which green energy specialists have described as a drop in the ocean and completely inadequate?

Christopher Huhne: The hon. Gentleman should be aware that that is new money, which will be spent—unlike some allocations that were made under the previous Government. We are very committed to bringing forward such early-stage technologies, which are going to be part of our future, and I have been very keen to see for myself the progress that has been made, particularly on wave projects.

Edward Timpson: By 2012, Bentley Motors in Crewe in my constituency will have made 100% of its range compatible with renewable fuels, reducing its CO2 emissions by at least 15%. Will my hon. Friend visit the Bentley site to see how that and other investment is helping to reduce the impact on the environment, and to discuss what further support his Department may be able to offer?

Charles Hendry: I was very pleased to have the chance earlier this week to talk about those issues with Bentley, which is of course a world-class engineering company based in my hon. Friend’s constituency. I shall be in touch with his office later today to fix a visit in the coming weeks.

Dennis Skinner: Will the Secretary of State reflect further on the anaerobic digester plants that are close to and in built-up areas? Is he aware that the stuff being carried by lorries trundling through the village of Whitwell in my constituency is not the green deal but brown and stinks to high heaven? What does he have to say to the people there?

Christopher Huhne: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. The more I do this job, the more I realise that there is not a single energy source, whether it is anaerobic digesters, wind turbines or nuclear power, or indeed fracking with shale gas, that does not involve concerns and worries. It is our job to make sure that those are minimised, and we want to ensure that his constituents suffer the minimum disruption to their lives in built-up areas.

Steve Brine: I thank the Minister for giving his time earlier this week to meet the GreenWin organisation from my constituency. He will have noticed that it stands well prepared for green deal roll-out in my part of the world. Will he keep
	at the forefront of his mind at all times the fact that it is not only these big society organisations that will make the green deal a success, but the small value-added services that can be offered to make energy efficiency possible for many of our constituents—services such as basic loft clearance, which he knows could be a deal breaker?

Gregory Barker: I was delighted to meet my hon. Friend and GreenWin, which is an excellent organisation whose expertise is now radiating beyond his constituency. He is absolutely right. Many of the barriers to the green deal and take-up of energy efficiency are not just financial but involve practical measures such as clearing the loft. A community response to overcoming those barriers is often the very best way. My officials will be working to see how we can spread the expertise of GreenWin right across the country.

Nia Griffith: An observant constituent of mine noticed on a very sunny day that he was getting nothing back for the electricity he was generating from his solar panels. Luckily the problem—it was a grid problem—has now been resolved by Western Power. What is the Secretary of State doing to ensure that the infrastructure across the country is adequate to take on all the electricity, especially in areas where solar panels have become very popular, and to make absolutely sure that those people are able to get the feed-in tariff that they are generating?

Charles Hendry: Part of the solution to this is the rolling out of smart grids, which will measure two-way flows of electricity and therefore give an absolutely precise reading of what is being put into the grid. We are taking forward that programme, and we have already shaved a year off the time scale that we inherited from the previous Administration because of the many benefits that it will bring.

Sarah Newton: Will my hon. Friend update the House on what recent actions he has taken to ensure that the problems encountered last winter by constituents of mine who heat their homes with fuel oil will not be repeated this year?

Charles Hendry: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise that at this time of the year, because this is when we need to be planning for the winter. The Office of Fair Trading is investigating the matter. I have asked for its report to be completed by the early autumn so that we can decide exactly what measures need to be introduced to make sure that the problems of last winter are not repeated.

Gavin Shuker: I am sure that a Minister as progressive and forward thinking as the Secretary of State is convinced by the arguments put forward by those who advocate double summer time. What efforts is he making to reduce carbon emissions by following this approach and speaking to his Cabinet colleagues about the issue?

Christopher Huhne: I was quite intrigued by the whole issue of double summer time because I, perhaps like the hon. Gentleman, thought that it was a bit of a silver bullet
	and an easy solution. Unfortunately, it turns out that there are more complications, not only north of the border but certainly there, and that the extent of the carbon reductions is not as clear cut as it may appear. However, it is a matter not for my Department but for the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills.

Mr Speaker: Last but not least, I call Tessa Munt.

Tessa Munt: Sir Michael Pitt from the Infrastructure Planning Commission, supported by the Department, requested a fair, independent and transparent report on the cost of undergrounding and any alternative to cables and pylons. Now that KEMA has been sacked, the Institution of Engineering and Technology cannot endorse a report because there is not one. National
	Grid is implicated for not providing the figures that are necessary for whole-life costs. The public are left with buried figures rather than buried cables. What can the Minister do to get information on costs available to people before the development consent applications have been received by the IPC?

Christopher Huhne: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her question. She is a particularly doughty campaigner on this issue, and I am aware of how significant it is in Somerset. All I can say is that we will try to be as open as possible about all the information. If we have in any way failed to be open, I ask her to get in touch and we will make sure that we are being so. My understanding is that the costs of undergrounding are roughly 10 times as high as the costs of pylons, and that pylons are going to be quite important.

Business of the House

Hilary Benn: Will the Leader of the House give us the forthcoming business?

George Young: The business for the week commencing 11 July will include:
	Monday 11 July—Consideration of Lords amendments to the European Union Bill, followed by motion to approve European documents relating to rights and protection of victims.
	Tuesday 12 July—Motion relating to the retirement of the Clerk of the House, followed by Second Reading of the Public Bodies Bill [Lords], followed by if necessary consideration of Lords amendments.
	Wednesday 13 July—Consideration of Lords amendments to the Fixed-term Parliaments Bill, followed by Opposition day [20th allotted day] [Half day]. There will be a debate on an Opposition motion. Subject to be announced.
	Thursday 14 July—Consideration of an allocation of time motion, followed by all stages of the Sovereign Grant Bill.
	The provisional business for the week commencing 18 July will include:
	Monday 18 July—Motions relating to national policy statements. Motion to approve the appointment of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration and Health Service Commissioner for England.
	Tuesday 19 July—General debate on matters to be raised before the forthcoming Adjournment, as nominated by the Backbench Business Committee.
	I applaud the Chair of the Backbench Business Committee for her award last night as The House magazine’s Back-Bencher of the year.

Hilary Benn: I am grateful to the Leader of the House for that reply. May I join him in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for North East Derbyshire (Natascha Engel) on her award?
	Today, we remember the 52 victims of the 7 July bombings and their bereaved families. The terrible pain that they must still feel will be shared across the House. That anyone could have tried to exploit their raw grief to sell newspapers shows exactly why yesterday’s debate was so important. The best way to uphold the kind of journalism that we respect is to root out the kind of journalism that none of us can stomach. I have, therefore, three questions to ask the Leader of the House.
	The first is on the public inquiry, which must be judge-led. I welcome the Government’s swift change of mind since the Deputy Prime Minister rejected an inquiry on Tuesday. When will we have a statement setting out how the inquiry will be established, who will chair it and what its powers will be? Can we be assured that it will cover the culture and practices that led to what happened, the nature of regulation, and the relationship between the police and the media?
	Can we have an urgent statement from the Home Secretary? The Prevention of Corruption Act 1906 makes it an offence for anyone to pay money to a police
	officer or for any officer to receive it. The House wants to be assured now that whatever the current investigation reveals, including on the allegation that the Prime Minister’s former director of communications sanctioned payments to police officers while he was at the
	News of the World
	, this practice is no longer happening anywhere. The Home Secretary has so far been conspicuous by her absence. It is time she came to the House to answer questions.
	Can we have an urgent statement from the Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport on the BSkyB bid? It was clear yesterday that the House will no longer accept the course of action that he has been intent upon. In the light of what has been revealed about the activities at News International, this matter must now be referred to the Competition Commission.
	Last week, I asked for a statement by the Secretary of State for Transport on the award of the contract to build 1,200 Thameslink train carriages to Siemens. It turns out that at the same time as the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions was in Madrid telling British employers to give British jobs to British workers, his Cabinet colleagues were having to explain why they had given a contract for British trains to German workers. Instead of blaming the procurement process, the Ministers who took this decision need to explain what they propose to do, given that this week Bombardier announced that 1,429 skilled workers in Derby, long the proud home of train manufacturing in Britain, will lose their jobs. So much for all the Government’s empty words about British manufacturing.
	In welcoming the £38 million in British aid announced this week to help the millions facing starvation in the horn of Africa, may I ask for a debate on the food crisis affecting our fellow human beings there? The world cannot make it rain, but we can and must lend a hand.
	May we have a statement on housing benefit from the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government so that he can explain the letter that he authorised his private secretary to send to the Prime Minister’s office in January? It revealed that the Government’s housing benefit plans could make 40,000 people homeless, cut house building and end up not saving money but costing it. Yet while raising those “very serious practical issues” in private, the Communities Secretary was saying in public that he backed what the Government were doing.
	The House also wants to know which Minister knew what and when about that information, which was clearly available back in January but was not revealed during the passage of the Welfare Reform Bill. Here is another policy that just has not been thought through. Only Conservative Ministers could come up with a housing policy that makes people homeless and costs taxpayers more.
	Finally, may we have a debate on prime ministerial authority? Asked two weeks ago about the threat by his Tory MEPs to oppose tougher carbon emission targets, the Prime Minister promised the House that he would “work on” them. What happened? Such is his diminished influence that a majority of them simply ignored his pleas and voted against a binding 30% reduction this week.
	I have a suggestion that might help. The next time Tory MEPs are rebelling on climate change, perhaps the Communities Secretary could offer to assist. Famous for his lecturing of local government about belt-tightening,
	it seems that he has recently replaced his £20,000 fuel-efficient ministerial Prius with a £70,000 Jaguar. Perhaps he could offer to drive over to Strasbourg and remind his Tory colleagues just how important it is to cut carbon emissions.

George Young: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. The Deputy Leader of the House and myself travel almost everywhere by bicycle, so we are making our contribution to energy saving, and we have a very small carbon footprint between us.
	May I begin with the serious issue that the right hon. Gentleman raised? Yesterday’s debate marked a sea change in the House’s perception of certain sections of the press, which I think reflects a much broader change in how the public now view the allegations. They have been made even worse by the allegations in the press today that the families of soldiers who have fallen had their phones tapped. It was a good debate, because the mover of the motion and many others who spoke from throughout the House understood and recognised that it was not a party political issue.
	The Government are now looking at two inquiries. The first is on the specifics of the original police investigation and why it did not uncover some of the allegations that are now emerging, and the second is on the wider issue of media ethics, to which the right hon. Gentleman referred. There is a relationship between those two inquiries, which means that we will have to give careful thought to their terms of reference and their relationship with the ongoing police investigation. We will consult widely on the terms of reference, including with the Joint Committee on privacy, party leaders and the Cabinet Secretary. We want to get this right, and we plan to make an announcement to the House before Parliament rises for the summer recess. I will pass the right hon. Gentleman’s questions on to the Home Secretary, who will be in the House today for Second Reading of the Police (Detention and Bail) Bill.
	On BSkyB, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, the Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport is acting in a quasi-judicial way, and it is quite right that he carries out his role in that manner without any interference from anyone else in the Government. As the right hon. Gentleman will know, my right hon. Friend was on the Treasury Bench for the debate yesterday and will have heard what the House said. Yesterday’s debate was about newspapers not being above the law, and it is quite right that Ministers are not above the law either.
	On Bombardier, the right hon. Gentleman sought to dismiss the way in which the procurement process was designed and initiated by the previous Government. As I have just said, newspapers are not above the law, but Ministers are not above the law either. We are bound by the criteria that the previous Government set out, and we must continue with the decision that has been made according to those criteria. Of course, any job losses are regrettable, but Bombardier had previously advised the Government that it expected to make 1,000 redundancies at this time, regardless of the outcome of the Thameslink procurement, as several of its existing orders had reached completion. Derby is a priority area for the European regional development fund under the east midlands
	programme. I understand that a large amount of the £6.6 million ERDF funding available for Derby to use for suitable projects is still available, and there are six bids from Derby for the regional growth fund.
	Turning to the Department for International Development, the shadow Leader of the House will have seen the written ministerial statement by the Secretary of State for International Development on 6 July. He is holding a briefing on the horn of Africa at 5 pm this evening in room 15 and will update colleagues if they go along. The shadow Leader of the House will have seen in the ministerial statement that the Government have contributed help with food for 1.3 million Ethiopians for three months as well as helping to tackle the problem of hundreds of thousands of starving children.
	The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government has replied to the shadow Secretary of State and placed the letter in the Library. The letter deals with all the questions raised by the shadow Leader of the House. I note in particular that Secretary of State says that
	“since it was written, the Government has said it will be looking at transitional arrangements for particularly hard cases. We are putting in a series of policy measures to assist local authorities with that transition, and to provide considerable financial support to tackle homelessness.”
	He goes on to say:
	“I…hope Her Majesty’s Opposition can support”
	the benefit cap,
	“not least since it was in the Labour Party’s general election manifesto.”
	The matter of Conservative MEPs and climate change was covered in the exchange that just took place in Department of Energy and Climate Change questions. Of course, we are disappointed about the European Parliament vote, but I am sorry that when it came to voting on the amended report as a whole, Conservative MEPs mostly voted in favour, and Labour MEPs largely voted against.

Adam Afriyie: On 12 May, the House tasked the Members’ Allowances Committee to review the Parliamentary Standards Act 2009. I welcome the Leader of the House’s support in doing so, but there is a motion on today’s Order Paper that suggests, on the face of it, that the remit of the Committee should be restricted to looking at expenses. It looks that way, but I feel sure that that is not what the Leader of the House is seeking to do, and that he wants to ensure that a full review takes place. I just invite him, to save time this afternoon, to make it absolutely clear that the motion will not restrict the Committee from conducting a full review into all aspects of the 2009 Act.

George Young: Following the debate that my hon. Friend initiated, we had informal discussions with him, and I tabled a motion earlier this week that, as I understood it, met all his concerns and provided the right remit. I was very sorry that the motion was blocked on two occasions, and of course, amendments to it have been tabled, which automatically blocks it. I cannot undertake to find time between now and the end of the Session to debate this particularly important issue. I very much hope that those who blocked the motion or tabled amendments to it will think again, and enable us to make progress and set up the Committee as it was originally envisaged.

Kate Hoey: When can we have a debate, and indeed some action, on the shocking situation whereby Sinn Fein MPs, who refuse to recognise this Parliament or Her Majesty the Queen, still get their huge allowances and travel expenses? When will we accept that if they will not accept this Parliament’s rule, they cannot accept British money?

George Young: The Government’s view is that all hon. Members who have been elected to the House should take their place in it. We see no reason why that should not happen. As I said in business questions last week, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is having discussions with the parties in Northern Ireland with a view to bringing that unsatisfactory situation to a satisfactory conclusion.

Martin Vickers: The major development in my constituency—the South Humber gateway project—is delayed yet again by Government agencies, particularly Natural England, carrying out their duties within the planning process. Will the Leader of the House find time for a debate on the role of those agencies in planning, because it is causing severe problems, and we need the jobs?

George Young: I announced a debate on Monday week on national planning statements, and it may be that the hon. Gentleman can intervene in that. Failing that, the Adjournment debate on the last day may be an appropriate opportunity for him to raise the matter at greater length.

Tom Harris: The Leader of the House has been extremely supportive in my many and varied disputes with the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority and I am genuinely grateful to him for that. I copied him into my recent letter complaining that my constituency office rent for the last quarter of 2010, which was submitted in December, has still not been paid. Since then I have been asked by IPSA, on two occasions, to resubmit the same claim each with a different and fictional date attached so that the computer can cope with it. The situation is descending into a cross between a “Carry On” movie and a Kafka novel. If the Government are so keen to clean up the so-called mess left behind by the last Government, he could do an awful lot worse than clean up the mess that is the failed and failing organisation that is IPSA?

George Young: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman has been diverted from his serious duties of representing his constituents in this House by the issues that he has just described. I will raise it with IPSA later today and see whether we can resolve it. I draw to his attention, and to the attention of the House, the National Audit Office report on IPSA, which was published today and, I hope, will provide the basis for a more satisfactory relationship between the House and IPSA. The report refers to the “adversarial relationship” that has developed between IPSA and many MPs, and I hope that some of the recommendations in the report will enable us to move on to a more harmonious basis.

Nicholas Soames: My right hon. Friend will have noticed the rising tide of rivalry between the west and China. Does he agree that this presents a
	unique opportunity for the United Kingdom and her extraordinary, exceptional and unique network based in the Commonwealth to move into that space with the countries of the Arab spring and the African countries seeking prosperity and stability? Will he arrange time for a debate on this subject which touches on the future prosperity and success of this country?

George Young: I am grateful to my hon. Friend and I will of course draw his remarks to the attention of the Foreign Secretary. Later this month, there is a Commonwealth Parliamentary Association conference, which may be an opportunity to raise the profile of the subject on a much broader plane. He is right that there is an opportunity to fill the vacuum, and I will draw his remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend.

Pat McFadden: As my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) said, today is the sixth anniversary of the bombings on the London underground, and the victims and their families are in our thoughts. Can the Leader of the House tell us when the Government will bring forward their legislation to water down control orders and why his Government are so determined to introduce legislation that would give those who would aid and abet terrorism increased access to mobile phones and computers; put increased pressure on the security services by requiring them to increase surveillance; and place the public at greater risk?

George Young: The right hon. Gentleman is right to remind the House of the bombings six years ago today, and our thoughts are with the families and friends of those who lost their lives. The issue that he raised is subject to legislation before the House in the form of the Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Bill and I hope that he, or his colleagues in the other place, will have an opportunity to raise their concerns.

Robert Halfon: Has my hon. Friend seen early-day motion 2037 about the disgraceful decision by Diva magazine to rescind a work placement that they had originally offered to Harlow college student Simone Webb on the grounds that she was not rich enough to afford her bus fare and did not have independent means?
	[That this House notes that Simone Webb is a 17 year old Harlow College student hoping to study at Oxford University; further notes that she was offered a one month unpaid internship at DIVA magazine, but was later refused on the grounds that she hoped to be reimbursed just £5 transport expenses a day, and was told that DIVA was ‘uncomfortable’ offering her an internship as she was ‘so young and without an independent budget of [her] own’; believes that barriers of this kind are a major threat to social mobility and that this is an outrageous example of internships being abused; and calls for DIVA magazine to pay reasonable transport expenses where it can, and to drop its discriminatory policy of refusing to employ people who lack ‘an independent budget’.]
	May we have an urgent debate on social mobility to ensure that work experience and internships are available to the many, not the few?

George Young: My hon. Friend is right: internships should be available according to not who you know, but what you know. The House has set an example with the
	internships that have recently been announced. We are committed to social mobility and we encourage businesses to offer internships openly and transparently and to provide financial support to ensure fair access.

Gisela Stuart: Could the Leader of the House tell us what contingency provisions he has made for the House to return and have a debate in the event of a Greek default during the summer recess?

George Young: There are always questions about recalling the House during the summer recess, but they are normally slighter closer to the recess. The hon. Lady raises an important issue. The issue of recall is a matter for the Government, after contacting Mr Speaker. If the situation arises, the Government will take the necessary steps to recall the House.

Peter Bone: I do not know if you tweet, Mr Speaker, but may I direct you to a person called “Mrs Jennie Bone” on Twitter, who is being followed by more than 100 people, including journalists and Members of Parliament? It is very interesting and amusing, but with one slight problem—it is completely bogus. This is a really important issue if people are taking other people’s names and purporting to be them. While that person is saying funny things at the moment, they could put up something racist or pornographic at any time. So may we have a statement about people taking over other people’s identity on the internet?

George Young: You may not tweet, Mr Speaker, but I believe that you know somebody who does. My hon. Friend raises a serious issue about impersonation, and I wonder whether I might encourage him to take part in the debate that he has helped to organise on the last day before the recess, when there may be an opportunity to debate this at greater length and give advice to those who find themselves facing the same difficulty.

Grahame Morris: I wonder whether the Leader of the House would agree to a debate in Government time on sector-specific support for the UK film and media sector. I raise that issue because I have a particular interest in promoting a scheme in my locality—the Centre of Creative Excellence in Seaham. The difficulty that we have is that the three pillars of support that were there previously—the regional development agency, Northern Film and Media and the UK Film Council, and grant aid through Durham county council—have been withdrawn. We need to know how we can make progress on this and create 1,200 jobs and apprenticeships.

George Young: I agree that we should do all we can to support the UK film and media industry, which is one of our success stories. There will be an opportunity a week today to raise this issue with the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, in either an oral question or a topical question, but in the meantime, I will draw the hon. Gentleman’s concern to the attention of my right hon. Friends so that they know where he is coming from.

Duncan Hames: May we have an urgent debate on media regulation, given that Ofcom declines to exercise the fit and proper person test in relation to News International despite certain News of the World reporters having been jailed for their actions in the course of their work and the testimony of its executives before Parliament having been seriously undermined by the revelations that we have witnessed this week?

George Young: I understand what my hon. Friend says, and he may have seen the exchange that took place on 30 June, when my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport answered an urgent question. He said:
	“Before coming to such a view”—
	on the application before him—
	“I will of course seek once again the advice of the independent external regulators.”—[Official Report, 30 June 2011; Vol. 530, c. 1107.]
	That includes Ofcom and, of course, the Office of Fair Trading.

Kevin Brennan: We need that urgent debate on the BSkyB/News Corp takeover because yesterday we had the ludicrous spectacle of the Culture Secretary communicating with the House of Commons by whispering in the ear of the Government’s lawyer, as if he were on trial at the Old Bailey. Should not the Culture Secretary man up and take the stand himself by making an urgent statement today at the Dispatch Box?

George Young: I think the hon. Gentleman is somewhat unfair. My right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General was intervening in a debate and speaking about his own responsibilities. He generously took questions that related to another Minister’s responsibilities and, in answering them, he sensibly took advice. As the Prime Minister has said, Ministers in this Government talk to each other.

Christopher Pincher: One of the most difficult educational problems we face in Tamworth is that not enough young people aspire to go to university. May we have a debate on the pupil premium and how over time it can drive up aspiration among our most disadvantaged young people and encourage more of them to go to university?

George Young: There will be Education questions on Monday, but my hon. Friend is right, and I hope that the pupil premium will enable more pupils from low-income families to aspire to university. The figures at the moment are deeply depressing, and I hope that as the pupil premium feeds through the education system, more children who would not otherwise have considered a university education will find it accessible to them.

Gloria De Piero: This week I saw figures from my constituency showing that demand for debt advice over the past year has risen dramatically, yet opening hours of citizen advice bureaux are falling dramatically. May we have a debate on how we might support people who need help during this crisis in CABs?

George Young: I applaud the work of the CABs, which are indeed under greater pressure. I attended a reception that other colleagues might have attended earlier this week on the Terrace at which my right hon. and learned Friend the Justice Secretary outlined the support that the Government were giving to CABs to help them cope. Hon. Members will have an opportunity next Thursday to ask Ministers in the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills about CABs.

Andrew Murrison: Amid the chaos of north Africa, last week the Kingdom of Morocco quietly, efficiently and peacefully conducted a referendum that will usher in far-reaching constitutional changes that I am sure we will all welcome. In the context of the Arab spring, may we have a debate on how this commendable model can be exported in a region which is too often reliant on violent disorder and bloody civil war to usher in change?

George Young: I congratulate my hon. Friend on raising the profile of a good example of how orderly reform can take place. There will be an opportunity at Foreign and Commonwealth Office questions on 19 July to ask my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary about that matter and about how the example of Morocco might be spread more widely.

Barry Sheerman: The Leader of the House will realise that this is the 10th anniversary of the dreadful Bradford riots. May we have an early opportunity to debate the progress made since then? In that debate, may we discuss how the cutting of youth services and of courses for English as a second language and the inability to integrate so many schools in our major cities will come back to haunt us?

George Young: I have every sympathy with the hon. Gentleman’s point, but he will recognise that if his party had won the last election it would have had to take some difficult decisions that might have had exactly the same impact on youth services.

Charlie Elphicke: May we have a debate on the crisis in the horn of Africa, looking particularly at the work done by the Department for International Development? The UN estimates that about 10 million people face food shortages or starvation. The assistance being provided by DFID is precisely the sort of practical, targeted aid that makes a difference and which we should encourage.

George Young: I repeat what I said a few moments ago and draw the House’s attention to the written ministerial statement from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development outlining the extensive support that the Government are giving to the horn of Africa and urging other countries to match our contribution. As I said, later today my right hon. Friend is giving a briefing to colleagues to which my hon. Friend is welcome to come.

Ann Clwyd: May we have a statement before the recess on two important human rights issues? The first is the continuing detention of hundreds of children at Heathrow despite a coalition promise last year that the practice would end. Secondly,
	it appears that the Government’s plans for an inquiry into the UK’s role in torture and rendition are in complete disarray after human rights groups labelled the inquiry a sham and lawyers and witnesses said that they were going to boycott it.

George Young: On the first point, it is indeed our intention to phase out the detention of children, and I will draw the Home Secretary’s attention to the matter. I will also raise the second issue with the appropriate Minister—either the Home Secretary or the Foreign Secretary.

Stephen Williams: I do not know whether the Leader of the House reads The Times over breakfast, but if he does, this morning he will have noticed that the share price of News Corp has fallen by 3.6% and that companies as diverse as Ford, the Co-op, Butlins and, I am pleased to say, the state-controlled Lloyds Banking Group have withdrawn their advertising from the News of the World. Will he ask a Cabinet Office colleague to make a statement to the House on the level of Government expenditure on advertising with News International titles? Where private business and investors have given a lead, could not the Government now follow?

George Young: I read a digital version of The Times at 5.30 this morning, but I am not sure that all the advertisements appear in the digital version. However, my hon. Friend raises an important issue about whether the Government should continue to sponsor advertisements when the private sector has acted as he mentioned. I will raise the matter urgently with the Minister for the Cabinet Office, my right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Mr Maude), and see whether the House can be kept in the picture.

John Spellar: There are increasing numbers of complaints from colleagues about being refused meetings with Ministers on constituency matters. I do not include the Leader of the House in this complaint—I never heard such a complaint made about him while he was a departmental Minister—but as he knows, the fundamental route for Members in pursuing constituency cases is through such meetings. May we therefore have a debate to air this issue, and will he lay down proper guidelines for his fellow Ministers?

George Young: The right hon. Gentleman raises a serious issue. I would welcome more information, if he is prepared to let me have it, on the exact instances in which my right hon. and hon. Friends have refused to meet hon. Members. I think that there is a convention that, unless there are strong legal reasons not to do so, Ministers should meet MPs. If he could give me an appropriate list, I would be more than happy to take it up with my colleagues and facilitate every appropriate meeting.

Priti Patel: In November, the United Kingdom will take over the chairmanship of the Council of Europe. In view of the persistent attacks that this body, including the European Court of Human Rights, has inflicted on this country, will the Leader of the House give an assurance that we will have a debate in
	Government time before November so that Members can debate and influence how we can reform that out-of-touch institution?

George Young: I know that this is a matter of concern to my hon. Friend and other of my hon. Friends. Work is under way to agree UK objectives and priorities for our chairmanship of the Council of Europe. That includes consultation, as appropriate, with interested parties, and I will certainly feed into that consultation the issue that my hon. Friend has just raised.

Bill Esterson: I am sure that the Leader of the House is aware that The Daily Telegraph has said that we need a checklist of the Prime Minister’s social meetings with Rebekah Brooks. May we have a statement about those meetings and what was discussed?

George Young: My right hon. Friend and all Ministers are obliged to publish regularly details of meetings that they have had with commercial organisations. I am sure that this Government, like the previous one, will continue to observe the relevant parts of the ministerial code.

Stephen Mosley: In March a constituent of mine, Rebecca Coriam, disappeared while working for a British employment agency on a Bahamian-registered, American-based Disney cruise ship in international waters off the coast of Mexico. Despite an investigation by the Bahamas Maritime Authority, her family are still awaiting news of their daughter. May we have a debate on the safety and regulation of cruise ships that would enable me to highlight the difficulties faced by those trying to identify the facts and the responsibility behind events at sea?

George Young: I understand my hon. Friend’s concern. I believe that the Minister with responsibility for shipping is aware of that case and understands my hon. Friend’s concerns, and is happy to meet him and the family to discuss how we might take the matter forward.

Valerie Vaz: There has been cross-party and international support for Sakineh Ashtiani, who remains alive but still under threat of execution while her male co-accused is free. May we have an urgent debate on cases such as hers and that of Aung San Suu Kyi—women who are victims of repressive regimes—so that their cases are not forgotten?

George Young: I am grateful to the hon. Lady. It is monstrous that Ms Ashtiani remains in prison having not had fair representation at her trial and having gone through a terrible year, not knowing whether on any given day she would be executed. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary continues to make representations about her case to the Iranian authorities. It was highlighted in the press today how important it is that continuing pressure be kept on Iran to release this lady as soon as possible.

Michael Ellis: The Leader of the House might be aware that there is a plan in Parliament for a stained glass window to mark Her
	Majesty the Queen’s diamond jubilee. It is attracting support from both sides of the House and in both Houses of Parliament. Will my right hon. Friend elucidate on any plans for a Loyal or Humble Address from Parliament for Her Majesty’s visit next year during her diamond jubilee?

George Young: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the initiative he has taken in raising funds for the stained glass window—I have sent an envelope with something in it to the appropriate authorities. You will have heard what my hon. Friend has said, Mr Speaker, and I am sure that when we come to celebrate the event, there will be an appropriate opportunity for an Address to Her Majesty.

Barry Gardiner: In the past 24 hours, Portuguese Government debt has been downgraded to junk status. At a time when the Government are increasing their contribution to the IMF from £10 billion to £20 billion this year, may we have an urgent debate to ensure that taxpayers in this country are protected from the contamination in the eurozone?

George Young: It is worth remembering that it was exactly to avoid the problems that confront Portugal that this coalition Government had to take some difficult decisions last year to clear up the mess that the hon. Gentleman left behind. There will be an opportunity to ask questions to my hon. Friends at the Treasury, but what Moody’s has done to Portugal is a reminder that we need responsible housekeeping here in the UK.

Brandon Lewis: Young people in Great Yarmouth are already starting to see the benefits of more apprenticeships and growth in the tourism and energy sectors, partly thanks to the Government’s strategy and work, so may we have a debate on youth employment, in order to highlight some of the opportunities and growth in that area?

George Young: There will be an opportunity in a week’s time to raise the issue of apprenticeships with Ministers at BIS. It is good news that youth unemployment has now fallen below the level that we inherited. With initiatives such as apprenticeships, we hope to make further progress in reducing the level as the economy picks up.

Kelvin Hopkins: A report in The Independent today shows that research by the Medical Research Council at its laboratory in Cambridge has concluded that alcohol damages the DNA of unborn children beyond repair. Given that Britain has a serious problem with binge drinking among young women and one of the highest teenage pregnancy rates in the world, is it not likely that thousands of babies are being born damaged as a result of teenagers drinking while pregnant? May we have an urgent debate about what can be done to address this serious matter?

George Young: The hon. Gentleman raises a serious issue. I hope that pregnant women will have heard what he said and will drink sensibly while carrying their child. There will be an opportunity at Health questions next Tuesday to raise the matter further with Health Ministers, but I will warn them in advance that
	the hon. Gentleman is pursuing the issue. I am sure that he has wide support in all parts of the House for encouraging a sensible approach to alcohol that will safeguard the health of the next generation.

James Gray: The important question of the way in which electronic devices such as iPads can and should be used in this Chamber and in Committee is delicately balanced between the split Procedure Committee report—which recommended their unfettered use for twittering and all the rest of it—and those of us who believe that their use ought to be much more constrained. Does the Leader of the House agree that this subject is worthy of a full, reasoned and careful debate, that it should not be rushed through in the short time between now and the recess, and that it should therefore be allowed—presumably—an hour and a half after the summer recess?

George Young: My hon. Friend will know that we had planned to debate this issue, but the need for urgent legislation to deal with police bail meant that the debate in the time allocated to the Backbench Business Committee had to be postponed. I agree with him that it is important that we should make progress on the issue. I happen to take a different view from the one that he espouses: I am broadly in favour of hand-held devices. I agree that, as soon as we can find the time, the issue should be resolved, but I cannot promise a debate between now and the summer recess.

Tom Blenkinsop: May we have a debate about extending the benefits of Northern Ireland’s McCallister Bill across the United Kingdom? In my constituency, Tingdene, a company that owns Hazelgrove caravan park, thoroughly intimidates and abuses its customers on that site, many of whom are pensioners in their latter years who have saved over their lives to retire in comfort.

George Young: Many Members would like to amend the legislation on mobile phones, as I am sure that many with mobile home parks in their constituencies have similar cases to the one that the hon. Gentleman has just mentioned, which I will raise with Ministers at DCLG. There is no legislation imminent, but I think I am right in saying that they have the existing legislation under review.

James Morris: The Leader of the House will be aware that we are currently in co-operatives fortnight. May we have an urgent debate about the importance of developing co-operative and mutual models, particularly for the delivery of public sector services?

George Young: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and I would like to be as co-operative as I can. The coalition agreement sets out commitments to public service mutuals that are being taken forward by the Cabinet Office, and I hope that there might be an initiative in that direction before the House rises.

Yvonne Fovargue: With the Committee stage starting next week on the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill—a Bill that will have major consequences for not-for-profit advice agencies—can
	the Leader of the House tell us when the review of advice services is likely to be completed and when a statement will be made to this House?

George Young: The short answer is that I do not have that information at my fingertips, but I will get an answer from the appropriate Minister and communicate it to the hon. Lady.

Julian Sturdy: May we have a debate on the fairness of supermarkets apparently undercutting independent fuel service stations, which is sadly forcing many independent forecourts to close?

George Young: My hon. Friend raises an issue that many Members will have confronted. Independent petrol stations are finding it tough at the moment, as the purchasing power of supermarkets is enabling them to undercut independents. This is a matter for the Office of Fair Trading, and I strongly encourage my hon. Friend to raise it with that body.

Stephen McCabe: I see that the Prime Minister has promised to restrict the use of business-class flights for Ministers and officials. I am anxious that this policy should be rather more successful than the promise to restrict the use of ministerial cars, so could we have a statement about how it will be implemented and reported to the House, so that we can measure progress on that promise?

George Young: One of the first things that this Administration did was to bring to an end contracts for individual cars for individual Ministers. When the figures are published, I think that the hon. Gentleman will find that there has been a substantial saving in the cost of ministerial transport under the coalition Government.

Greg Mulholland: May we have a debate on the role of local authorities in providing residential care for vulnerable older people, including those with dementia? Labour-run Leeds city council has caused uproar by announcing a raft of residential care home closures, including of Spring Gardens in Otley, without offering any alternative provision to its 27 residents or any plan for where they might go.

George Young: My hon. Friend raises an important issue that I hope the Dilnot report will begin to address. At some point we need a serious discussion about how we will fund residential and social care in future, in order to avoid the sort of decisions to which he has just referred.

Dave Watts: May we have an urgent debate or statement from the Prime Minister on the phone hacking scandal, to give him the opportunity to say how he will remove himself from any inquiry, given his close relationship with the Murdoch corporation? Secondly, will the Leader of the House give an assurance that any investigation will be run by a judge and not by one of the Prime Minister’s cronies?

George Young: On the second issue, as I said in response to the shadow Leader of the House, we are consulting with Opposition party leaders and others about the precise terms of reference and composition of
	the inquiry. The hon. Gentleman asked for a statement by the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister was at the Dispatch Box yesterday, and he indeed made such a statement.

Bob Blackman: Harrow PCT and Harrow council successfully bid for £2.6 million from the Department of Health for support for adult social care. Some £500,000 went to the PCT, which is applying the money correctly, but I understand that Labour-run Harrow council is using that £2.1 million to fund redundancies, to support its website and for other illicit purposes. May we have an urgent statement from the Department of Health on the millions of pounds of public money going into supporting adult social care, to ensure that it is spent on the purposes for which it is intended?

George Young: My hon. Friend is right: we allocated money to PCTs with the specific objective of transferring it through to local authorities to be used to fund social care. That was the precise objective. We asked PCTs to work with local authorities to agree jointly on appropriate areas for social care investment. I will raise what my hon. Friend has said with a Health Minister.

Luciana Berger: The Charity Commission has recently completed a strategic review to determine how Government spending cuts will affect staff in its organisation. Draft proposals show up to 42% of staff at the Liverpool office being made redundant, with a large amount of those staff on lower pay grades. In view of the urgency of the situation and the threat of job losses in Liverpool, may we please have an urgent debate on how Government cuts to the charitable sector are affecting the lowest paid?

George Young: I hope that the hon. Lady will concede that we took a number of initiatives in the Budget to promote giving to the charitable sector. We also set up a transitional fund to help charities through what is a difficult time. There will be an opportunity on the final day before the recess for the hon. Lady to speak in one of the Adjournment debates that I announced at the beginning of business questions.

Alun Cairns: May we have a debate on the administration and regulation of the Arch Cru investment fund? Some 20,000 people were left hanging when the fund was suspended two years ago. A compensation package has been offered by some of the stakeholders involved, but it is highly conditional and seems quite inadequate.

George Young: I am sorry to hear about the investors who lost their funds in the Arch Cru debacle. On 21 June, the Financial Services Authority announced a £54 million package for the investors, to which my hon. Friend has just referred. This is a matter for the FSA. The package will be used to make payments to eligible investors in Arch Cru funds, and will assist the return of a substantial part of their investment to them. I suggest that my hon. Friend pursue the matter further with the FSA.

Thomas Docherty: May I press the Leader of the House to update us on when the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs proposes to publish its water White Paper?

George Young: Ministers have made a commitment to publish a water White Paper, and it will be published by December 2011. It will cover England only, but it will be developed in close conjunction with the Welsh Assembly Government.

Chris Bryant: Of course I welcome the Government’s change of mind on a public inquiry into phone hacking, but may I urge the Leader of the House to ensure that that inquiry is led by a judge, that it is a statutory inquiry with full powers to subpoena evidence and witnesses, that witnesses will be able to give evidence on oath, that it will look not only at the broad issues but specifically at what happened at the News of the World, and that it can start as soon as is possible and practicable to gather the evidence before it is destroyed at the News of the World?

George Young: I commend the hon. Gentleman for his initiative in generating the debate on this matter, and indeed for what he said yesterday. The inquiries will be independent and they will be in public. I note what he has said about the specific format of the inquiries, and that will form part of the consultation process in which we are now engaged.

Barbara Keeley: Last week, the Deputy Prime Minister made the following announcement at a conference in Birmingham:
	“We will localise…business rates. No ifs, no buts, no maybes.”
	The localisation of business rates is a key policy change that could make the difference to the city of Salford of a loss of £36 million, while the City of London could gain £550 million. May we therefore have an urgent debate on the Government’s intentions for local government finance, so that Members can ask the questions that they should have been able to ask last week?

George Young: If the hon. Lady looks at the coalition agreement, she will see a clear statement of our intention to make local government finance more independent of central Government. We will be consulting in due course on the specific issue of business rates.

Diana Johnson: I am saddened to tell the Leader of the House that the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Hull branch is due to close because of funding problems. May we have a debate on the big society and its practical implications for the vast parts of this country that are poorer and more deprived and do not have the same access to funding and resources as other parts?

George Young: I was sorry to hear about the problems that are confronting the local branch of the RSPCA in the hon. Lady’s constituency. The RSPCA has one of the broadest bases of funding in the country. It is a very well supported and well respected organisation, and I was sorry to hear about that particular decision. As I said a few moments ago, we have made available
	transitional funding to help certain charities to get through a difficult time, but I am sorry that I cannot offer any immediate assistance to her local branch.

Jessica Morden: In the recent past, there were far more opportunities to discuss Welsh issues on the Floor of the House in the presence of the Secretary of State for Wales, but we now have only Welsh questions. Would the Leader of the House be amenable to discussing with the Secretary of State more opportunities to talk about Welsh issues, especially in view of the disproportionate effect of the cuts on Wales?

George Young: I understand the hon. Lady’s concern. She will know that, under the recommendations of the Wright Committee, responsibility for allocating days for debate other than on Government legislation now falls to the Backbench Business Committee, whose Chair will have heard her plea.

Paul Flynn: The Fukushima disaster continues and intensifies, with three reactors still in melt-through and leaking radiation without any chance or hope of remedy. The investigation taking place in Britain excludes any consideration of cost, but cost is the main consequence for Britain in increased charges for guarding power stations against a nuclear attack or unexpected natural event, so should not we in the House be doing the job that Weightman is forbidden to do?

George Young: Weightman is doing the task that he was asked to do. We have had the first stage of his report, and we will then address the second. On Monday week, we will be dealing with national planning policy statements, and the hon. Gentleman might have an opportunity to raise these issues again in that debate.

Graham Jones: May we have an urgent statement from the Housing Minister on the crisis of rogue landlords in the private rented sector,
	following a series of television exposés, including “Dispatches” on Channel 4 on Monday night, which showed one landlord, who was operating as a charity, boasting that he could break the law and that he would sort his tenants out with a baseball bat? Tens of thousands of people are trapped with poor or rogue landlords in the private rented sector. Following the programme, the Housing Minister was bombarded on Twitter, to which he replied. May we have an urgent statement from the Minister about his comments?

George Young: It is a serious offence, punishable by imprisonment, to threaten a tenant in the way that the hon. Gentleman has just described. I will draw his remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Housing Minister and ask whether there is any action that he should be taking in the light of that television programme.

Mr Speaker: I thank the Leader of the House and other Members for their pithiness, which has enabled all 46 Back Benchers who wanted to contribute to do so.

Business without Debate

SUPPLY AND APPROPRIATION (MAIN ESTIMATES) BILL

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 56), That the Bill be now read a Second time.
	Question agreed to.
	Bill accordingly read a Second time.
	Question put forthwith, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
	Question agreed to.
	Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

Business of the House (Police (Detention and Bail) Bill)

Nick Herbert: I beg to move,
	That the following provisions shall apply to the proceedings on the Police (Detention and Bail) Bill:
	Timetable
	l.-(l) Proceedings on Second Reading, in Committee, on Consideration and on Third Reading shall be completed at today's sitting in accordance with the following provisions of this paragraph.
	(2) Proceedings on Second Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at 3.00 pm.
	(3) Proceedings in Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at 5.00 pm.
	(4) Proceedings on Consideration and on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at 6.00 pm.
	Timing of proceedings and Questions to be put
	2. When the Bill has been read a second time—
	(a) it shall (notwithstanding Standing Order No. 63 (Committal of bills not subject to a programme order)) stand committed to a Committee of the whole House without any Question being put;
	(b) the Speaker shall leave the Chair whether or not notice of an Instruction has been given.
	3.-(l) On the conclusion of proceedings in Committee, the Chairman shall report the Bill to the House without putting any Question.
	(2) If the Bill is reported with amendments, the House shall proceed to consider the Bill as amended without any Question being put.
	4. For the purpose of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with
	paragraph 1, the Speaker or Chairman shall forthwith put the following Questions (but
	no others)—
	(a) any Question already proposed from the Chair;
	(b) any Question necessary to bring to a decision a Question so proposed;
	(c) the Question on any amendment moved or Motion made by a Minister of the Crown;
	(d) any other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded.
	5. On a Motion so made for a new Clause or a new Schedule, the Chairman or Speaker shall put only the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill.
	6. If two or more Questions would fall to be put under paragraph 4(c) on successive amendments moved or Motions made by a Minister of the Crown, the Chairman or Speaker shall instead put a single Question in relation to those amendments or Motions.
	7. If two or more Questions would fall to be put under paragraph 4(d) in relation to successive provisions of the Bill, the Chairman shall instead put a single Question in relation to those provisions.
	Consideration of Lords Amendments
	8.-(l) Any Lords Amendments to the Bill shall be considered forthwith without any Question being put.
	(2) Proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.
	9.-(l) This paragraph applies for the purpose of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph 8.
	(2) The Speaker shall first put forthwith any Question already proposed from the Chair and not yet decided.
	(3) If that Question is for the amendment of a Lords Amendment the Speaker shall then put forthwith—
	(a) a single Question on any further Amendments to the Lords Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown, and
	(b) the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown that this House agrees or disagrees to the Lords Amendment or (as the case may be) to the Lords Amendment as amended.
	(4) The Speaker shall then put forthwith—
	(a) a single Question on any Amendments moved by a Minister of the Crown to a Lords Amendment, and
	(b) the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown that this House agrees or disagrees to the Lords Amendment or (as the case may be) to the Lords Amendment as amended.
	(5) The Speaker shall then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown that this House disagrees to a Lords Amendment.
	(6) The Speaker shall then put forthwith the Question that this House agrees to all the remaining Lords Amendments.
	(7) As soon as the House has—
	(a) agreed or disagreed to a Lords Amendment; or
	(b) disposed of an Amendment relevant to a Lords Amendment which has been disagreed to,
	the Speaker shall put forthwith a single Question on any Amendments moved by a Minister of the Crown and relevant to the Lords Amendment.
	Subsequent stages
	10.-(l) Any further Message from the Lords on the Bill shall be considered forthwith without any Question being put.
	(2) Proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.
	1.-(l) This paragraph applies for the purpose of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph 10.
	(2) The Speaker shall first put forthwith any Question which has been proposed from the Chair and not yet decided.
	(3) The Speaker shall then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown which is related to the Question already proposed from the Chair.
	(4) The Speaker shall then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown on or relevant to any of the remaining items in the Lords Message.
	(5) The Speaker shall then put forthwith the Question that this House agrees with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Proposals.
	Reasons Committee
	12.-(1) The Speaker shall put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for the appointment, nomination and quorum of a Committee to draw up Reasons and the appointment of its Chair.
	(2) A Committee appointed to draw up Reasons shall report before the conclusion of the sitting at which it is appointed.
	(3) Proceedings in the Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion 30 minutes after their commencement.
	(4) For the purpose of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with sub-paragraph (3), the Chair shall—
	(a) first put forthwith any Question which has been proposed from the Chair but not yet decided, and
	(b) then put forthwith successively Questions on motions which may be made by a Minister of the Crown for assigning a Reason for disagreeing with the Lords in any of their Amendments.
	(5) The proceedings of the Committee shall be reported without any further Question being put.
	Miscellaneous
	13. Paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 15 (Exempted business) shall apply so far as necessary for the purposes of this Order.
	14.-(1) The proceedings on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.
	(2) Paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 15 (Exempted business) shall apply to those proceedings.
	15. Standing Order No. 82 (Business Committee) shall not apply in relation to any proceedings to which this Order applies.
	16.-(1) No Motion shall be made, except by a Minister of the Crown, to alter the order in which any proceedings on the Bill are taken or to re-commit the Bill.
	(2) The Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.
	17.-(1) No dilatory Motion shall be made in relation to proceedings to which this Order applies except by a Minister of the Crown.
	(2) The Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.
	18. The Speaker may not arrange for a debate to be held in accordance with Standing Order No. 24 (Emergency debates)—
	(a) at today's sitting, or
	(b) at any sitting at which Lords Amendments to the Bill are, or any further Message from the Lords is, to be considered, before the conclusion of any proceedings to which this Order applies.
	19.-(1) Sub-paragraph (2) applies if the House is adjourned, or the sitting is suspended, before the conclusion of any proceedings to which this Order applies.
	(2) No notice shall be required of a Motion made at the next sitting by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order.
	20. Proceedings to which this Order applies shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.
	21.-(1) Any private business which has been set down for consideration at seven o'clock, four o'clock or three o'clock (as the case may be) on a day on which the Bill has been set down to be taken as an Order of the Day, shall, instead of being considered as provided by Standing Orders, be considered at the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill on that day.
	(2) Paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 15 (Exempted business) shall apply to the private business for a period of three hours from the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill or, if those proceedings are concluded before the moment of interruption, for a period equal to the time elapsing between seven o'clock, four o'clock or three o'clock (as the case may be) and the conclusion of those proceedings.
	22. The Speaker shall not adjourn the House at the sitting on the day on which the Bill is sent back to the House from the Lords until—
	(a) any Message from the Lords on the Bill has been received, and
	(b) he has reported the Royal Assent to any Act agreed upon by both Houses.
	The motion provides for some five hours debate on the Police (Detention and Bail) Bill. If the House approves the motion, we will move directly on to Second Reading, which will take us to no later than 3 o’clock. The Committee of the whole House will then follow until no later than 5 o’clock, with a final hour for the remaining stages, to be completed by 6 o’clock. The motion also provides for programming of the later stages of the Bill in this House on consideration of Lords amendments, should there be any. I fully recognise that today’s timetable is a tight one. None the less, given the very specific issue that the House is being asked to consider, I am satisfied that the House, and in due course the other place, will have sufficient time to scrutinise this short Bill properly.
	As I indicated in my oral statement in the House last week, it is imperative that we act speedily to put an end to the uncertainty created by the recent judgment of the High Court in the case of Hookway. As I then explained
	to the House, that judgment is having a direct and immediate impact on the police’s ability to investigate offences and protect the public. The view of the Association of Chief Police Officers, which we share, is that we cannot wait until the outcome of the Supreme Court’s hearing of the appeal on 25 July. We need to act now, not least because we can make no assumption about the outcome of the appeal to the Supreme Court.

Mark Tami: The Minister says, “We need to act now”, but why have not we acted earlier?

Nick Herbert: I am sure that these matters will be covered in the Second Reading debate. I set out in my statement last week why it had not been possible to act until the written judgment had been properly considered and until we had received formal advice from the Association of Chief Police Officers that it wished us to proceed in this way. In that regard, I should like to quote the chief constable of Essex, Jim Barker-McCardle. On this issue, he has said:
	“It was only when ACPO received the written judgment on 17 June, and a number of senior people were able to spend some significant time considering the issue, that the seriousness of this became apparent. As the ACPO lead on this issue, I was not going to advise Ministers that the police service needed, in exceptional circumstances, fast track legislation until I had satisfied myself first that the legislation was necessary and that the police service could not operate effectively in light of this judgment, beyond the very short term.”
	We acted: within two hours of receiving that written advice, I was here giving a statement to the House announcing that we would introduce emergency legislation. The suggestion that we did not act swiftly flies directly in the face of what ACPO is saying about how it wishes this matter to be considered. Opposition Members do not have the backing of senior police officers for their contention that we acted too slowly in this respect.

Keith Vaz: I am grateful to the Policing Minister, who has accurately reflected the evidence given by the chief constable to the Select Committee on Tuesday. I have one point on the business motion. Is there any outstanding legal advice that the Home Office is seeking on this matter or is the issue of the legal advice now closed?

Nick Herbert: No, I am not aware of outstanding legal advice that we have taken. As I told the House last week, the Association of Chief Police Officers sought advice from two QCs before coming to us with a formal request for emergency legislation.
	In conclusion, I welcome the continued support from the Opposition Front-Bench team for expediting this Bill. I hope that the whole House will understand the need for fast-tracking and will therefore support the motion.

Yvette Cooper: We support the motion, and we will address some of the main issues when we get to Second Reading and further stages. I simply point out to the Policing Minister that we would have supported this motion on Monday, we would have supported it last week and we would have supported it the week before. I do not think it is not acceptable for the Home Office, which has responsibility for justice, to hide behind the Association
	of Chief Police Officers when it should also have made preparations and taken some decisions in this regard. The Home Office should have been trying to speed this up as rapidly as possible. We should get on with the main debate; we support the programme motion.

Lorraine Fullbrook: I am grateful for being called to speak in this debate on emergency legislation for police bail. It is fitting on this occasion to extend our sincere sympathy and condolences to the victims of the 7/7 terrorist attacks in London. I am sure our thoughts are with them on this day.
	This is a very short Bill, so I will make my comments brief. We are here to debate this emergency legislation today because—

Nigel Evans: Order. The hon. Member may be straying into the next debate. At the moment, we are debating just the programme motion.

Alan Beith: I am no fan of emergency legislation, which I think is generally a bad thing for the House to get involved with. However, the circumstances we face are such that the Government have been right to act and to bring the procedure forward in this way. I have looked at the concerns of the House of Lords Committee, but it seems to me that the procedure advocated for today is necessary and appropriate, so long as in the subsequent debate, the House can be satisfied that what the Government are seeking to do is to put the law on the footing that we all thought it was on in the first place. They should not make changes to the law without much more detailed and careful consideration. We should support the programme motion and ensure that Ministers can satisfy us that what they are doing is putting the law back to what we thought it was. If changes to the law are advocated, that should be done through a legislative process that allows consideration at greater length.

Nicholas Soames: I rise wholly to endorse the words of the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith) and to say to my right
	hon. Friend the Policing Minister that I applaud the way in which he has handled this matter and the speed with which he has responded to what was clearly a completely untenable situation. Does he agree—as I am sure he does—that the history of emergency legislation is not always a happy one, so that the right hon. Gentleman’s points carry even greater weight?

Chris Bryant: I wholeheartedly agree that we need to move as swiftly as possible with this legislation, but we should always note whenever emergency legislation is going through in one day that it has to be an extraordinary process because, in the ordinary course of events, the House should have an opportunity after Second Reading to table amendments that could then be considered on Report on a different day. When everything is truncated into one day, it is impossible to do that. I recognise that the Government tabled a business motion—and we agreed it earlier this week—that allowed the tabling of amendments before today. In the end, that is not best practice, as I know Government Members would fully accept. With the proviso that we do not do this often—as the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith) said, we can end up with legislation that is either bad or not as good as it might be—I support the motion.

Hazel Blears: I feel a slight sense of responsibility for the position we are in today as it is the district judge in Salford, Judge Feinstein, who made the original decision. I support the proceedings today, as I think we need to resolve the issue and get clarity. Judge Feinstein does a tremendous job in Salford in the local criminal justice system and has been particularly effective in dealing with antisocial behaviour. He construed the law as he saw it at that time. His judgment was upheld in the High Court; we await to see what the Supreme Court will do in relation to the appeal. Clearly, he was carrying out his duty in making the decision he did. That said, I entirely support the need to ensure that the police have the powers and the clarity they need to deal with defendants in these circumstances. I support the programme motion.
	Question put and agreed to.

Police (Detention and Bail) Bill

Second  Reading

Theresa May: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
	Since the Police and Criminal Evidence Act came into effect in January 1986, it has been widely recognised by the police and the courts that time spent on bail does not count towards the maximum permitted period of detention without charge. That is entirely right and proper. Being held in custody in a police cell is clearly not the same as being free on police bail, even with conditions attached.
	For more than 25 years, the sensible interpretation of the law has enabled the police to investigate crimes and keep the public safe, but on 19 May, in a judicial review, Mr Justice McCombe gave an oral judgment that it was his view that a district judge—as we have just heard from the right hon. Member for Salford and Eccles (Hazel Blears), Judge Feinstein—had been right to refuse a routine application for a warrant of further detention of Paul Hookway, a suspect in a murder investigation.
	I should stress to the House that at the time of the oral judgment on 19 May, it was not at all clear what the implications of this case would be. Indeed, in his oral judgment, Mr Justice McCombe himself said that “the consequences” of this ruling
	“are not as severe as might be feared in impeding police investigations in the vast majority of cases”.
	At that time, it was not clear whether the ruling was restricted to the details of the Hookway case alone, whether it had a limited application or whether it was restricted to warrants of further detention beyond 36 hours. It was not until the complex written judgment was received on Friday 17 June— and considered in detail with the advice of counsel—that it began to become clear that this case had wider implications for police detention and bail.

Robert Halfon: I thank the Government for their speedy action on this issue. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the reason why we are here today is that judicial interpretation in recent years, as so often, has been in favour of the criminal rather than the victim? Does not this legislation shift the balance in the right direction?

Theresa May: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention, but he tries to tempt me down a path of discussion which I think is probably inappropriate for today’s debate, although I have been on record in this House in commenting on previous judicial decisions. I know that there are those who do indeed feel the way my hon. Friend does, but we had better not get into that in today’s debate.

Keith Vaz: I am grateful to the Home Secretary and thank her for giving evidence about this matter to the Select Committee on Tuesday. She mentioned the legal advice sought by the Association of Chief Police Officers. Has the Home Office sought its own independent legal advice? I see the Solicitor-General sitting beside the right hon. Lady. Presumably, the Home Office, independent of ACPO, is satisfied that everything is in order so far as the legal advice is concerned.

Theresa May: Given his experience, the right hon. Gentleman will know that Ministers never confirm or deny when asked what legal advice or opinion they have sought. However, I can tell him that the Home Office is satisfied that the legislation is necessary. If it were not, we would not be introducing it.
	One hour and two minutes after the Home Office received ACPO’s professional, legal and operational advice on Thursday 30 June, the Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice delivered an oral statement to the House in which he announced our intention to introduce emergency legislation. The police’s professional and operational judgment, backed up by the legal expertise of two leading QCs, has guided the Government’s decision. Only fast-track primary legislation can give the police the necessary certainty and immediacy in restoring the law as it was understood to operate. As was pointed out by my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith), what we seek to do is return things to how they have been for the last 25 years.

Stephen McCabe: What many Opposition Members find difficult to deal with is the time scale. The Home Secretary says that the Government acted as speedily as possible, but Ministers did not meet representatives of ACPO until 24 June. The right hon. Lady could have read what was said by Michael Zander on 18 June, when he made it absolutely clear that we would need an appeal or emergency legislation. If she is the person in charge, why did she know nothing about that, and why did she not meet ACPO representatives until 24 June?

Theresa May: The hon. Gentleman asked me the same question earlier this week when I appeared before the Home Affairs Committee. The issue has also been raised by a number of other Opposition Members, who are doing their best to suggest that there was a delay. There was no delay. It was necessary for all the parties concerned to examine in detail the judgment that had been made available on 17 June. Professor Michael Zander is well respected in this field, in which he has considerable expertise, but I think that if I had come to the House and proposed to the Opposition that the Government introduce emergency legislation on the basis of an article that had appeared in a journal, the Opposition would have rightly told the Government that they should take a rather more professional approach.
	The Supreme Court’s decision on Tuesday not to grant a stay in the case has made the legislation all the more vital and all the more urgent. I welcome the support for it that has been promised by Opposition Front Benchers, as well as the support given by the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee, the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz).

Mark Reckless: It is clear to me, at least, that the Government acted with alacrity, but perhaps the Home Secretary can help me by explaining earlier events involving Greater Manchester police. Why, despite the discussion following the judgment, did they not apply for a certificate for an appeal on 19 May, and why did it then take so long for that to happen? In particular, why was no reliable written note taken of the oral judgment?

Theresa May: The answer to the question about the written note is that we were waiting for the judge who had made the decision to produce his own written judgment, so that it would be absolutely clear to us what we would need to interpret. What Greater Manchester police were dealing with was the oral judgment that had been delivered on 19 May. As I have just said, Mr Justice McCombe himself indicated that he did not think that the consequences would be especially severe. Only after further consideration did Greater Manchester police conclude that it would be necessary to appeal against the judgment.
	It is important to understand that it was not simply a question of looking at the legal judgment. It was for the police to consider, in operational terms, whether they were able to work within that judgment. When the written judgment was made available to them, the operational implications became clear. It is those operational implications that give cause for concern, and they are the reason for the Bill that we are introducing today.

Yvette Cooper: The Home Secretary has been dealing with issues relating to the emergency legislation. Will she tell us why the Attorney-General did not immediately join Greater Manchester police in applying for a stay of judgment as well as joining them in applying for an appeal?

Theresa May: The right hon. Lady has already raised a number of questions relating to this matter, including the question of the stay of judgment. She has claimed that there was a considerable delay before we came to the House, but, as I said earlier, one hour and two minutes after we received the formal and final judgment from ACPO on the basis of advice from the two QCs whom it had been consulting, my right hon. Friend the Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice made his statement here. As for her previous question about why the Home Office did not join the police in requesting a stay, the answer is simple: we had no locus standi. We were not part of the initial legal proceedings, and it was not open to us to be party to that request.
	Let me add—just in case the right hon. Lady intends to ask about this—that she has implied in the past that if Greater Manchester police had applied for a stay earlier, a different decision would have been made and everything might have been okay. However, it is now clear, both from the decision that the Supreme Court issued earlier this week and from what has been said by leading legal commentators such as Joshua Rozenberg, that it is not even certain that the Supreme Court has the power to order a stay in relation to such an appeal.

Yvette Cooper: Did the Attorney-General consider joining the case for both the appeal and the stay as soon as he was made aware of the position? In the end the Supreme Court asked him to do so, but did he consider doing so as soon as he was told, and when was he told?

Theresa May: I thought I had made the position clear to the right hon. Lady. Those who were party to the initial legal proceedings were able to grant a stay, and Greater Manchester police were able to make a decision—which they did at a certain point in the timetable—on whether to apply for one.
	If the right hon. Lady is trying to play party-political games with the question of the application for a stay, she should consider the comments that have been made and the decision of the Supreme Court, which, as I have just said, suggests that there is considerable doubt not about the timetable for a stay, but whether the court even has the power to order one in this case. The right hon. Lady should think about that very carefully.
	I think it important that the Home Affairs Committee has had an opportunity to scrutinise the Bill and also, fortuitously, an opportunity to ask me questions about it during the evidence session that I held with the Committee on Tuesday. I also note the support of leading legal figures such as Professor Michael Zander—who was mentioned earlier—and Liberty, which has said:
	“Liberty supports the Government’s intention to amend the law as proposed. In our view the proposed reform is clarificatory and would do nothing more than return the law to the original intention of Parliament and the way in which it has been interpreted—by judges, prosecutors and defence lawyers—for the best part of 25 years.”
	I could not agree more.

Paul Goggins: I fully support the Bill, but may I take the Home Secretary back to the last session of Home Office questions and her surprisingly dismissive comments about the Joint Committee that had been considering her proposals for emergency legislation in relation to pre-charge detention? The Committee had described those proposals as unsatisfactory and unreliable.
	In the light of the experience of the last few days, is the Home Secretary beginning to revisit her views on the role of emergency legislation in dealing with pressing and urgent issues? In particular, will she tell us what she would have done if all this had happened two or three weeks later, and the House had been in recess?

Theresa May: The premise of the right hon. Gentleman’s question is that I was dismissive of the Joint Committee’s views at Home Office questions, but I was not. Indeed, I have not been dismissive of its views because I have made it clear that we are accepting one of the points it raised on the emergency legislation, and I hardly think accepting one of its points can be described as being dismissive of its views.
	The Bill seeks to restore the law on police detention to the position as it has been understood for the last 25 years. The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 set out the rules governing detention and bail prior to charge.

Paul Goggins: rose —

Theresa May: Very well; I will give way again.

Paul Goggins: I am sorry to exasperate the Home Secretary, but I was rather hoping she would address the point I made at the end of my intervention: what would have happened if all this were taking place when we were in recess?

Theresa May: The right hon. Gentleman is trying to tempt me to debate hypothetical situations. It is right that we are introducing this legislation today, precisely
	so that it can be debated on the record and, we hope, receive Royal Assent before the House goes into recess. The right hon. Gentleman knows full well about the debates we have had on the emergency legislation for pre-charge detention and what would be applicable and possible for Parliament to do during a recess, and I am sure we will continue to have such debates. As I have said, I have accepted one of the Joint Committee’s points on this issue, and that can hardly be described as dismissing its views.
	As I was saying, PACE set out the rules governing detention and bail prior to charge. It provides that once a person is arrested and brought to a police station, that person must not be detained for longer than 96 hours in total without being charged with an offence. Within the overall maximum permitted 96-hour period, continued detention must be authorised by a police officer of at least the rank of superintendent after the initial 24 hours, and by a magistrate after the initial 36 hours, with fresh warrants required at 36-hour intervals.
	There are numerous other safeguards. For example, ongoing detention must be subject to periodic review, and an individual can challenge their detention at any time by bringing an action for habeas corpus in the High Court. The idea some have put forward that this judgment means the police should in some way just “work quicker” to gather evidence ignores the reality of policing and the necessity of the police being able to, for example, take forensics tests, and identify, contact and interview witnesses. The judgment effectively takes away police time in which to do such things.
	The Bill seeks to reverse the effect of the High Court’s ruling, but it only seeks to reverse that. It amends PACE to make it explicit that in calculating any period—whether a time limit or a period of pre-charge detention—any periods spent on bail shall be disregarded. The Bill also amends PACE to make it clear that periods of police detention before and after a period of bail are to be treated as if they form a single continuous period. This is an important safeguard that the High Court judgment had overturned, and, again, it restores the position to what it has been understood to be for the past 25 years.

Hazel Blears: The Home Secretary clearly regards police bail as an important tool for bringing people to justice. It often applies to people accused of serious crimes, and they can be required to live at locations well away from their home address so that they do not mix with any associates who might be involved in crime. Will the Home Secretary therefore explain why in the terrorism Bill that has just left Committee she is proposing that the restrictions for those suspected of being involved in terrorism should be weaker than the restrictions in this Bill for people suspected of being involved in serious crime who are on police bail?

Theresa May: The right hon. Lady is asking me to talk about a Bill that is entirely separate from the one we are addressing today. As I think she knows, in replacing control orders with the terrorism prevention and investigation measures—TPIMs—we have put together a package that includes both the measure itself and increased funds available to the Security Service and the police for surveillance. That is the basis on which we are going forward with that measure and that Bill.
	The Bill before us today provides that the amendments to PACE should have retrospective effect. That means that they are deemed always to have had effect, despite the High Court’s judgment in the Hookway case.

Julian Huppert: I support the Bill, but the purist in me is slightly anxious about the concept of retrospective legislation. Will the Home Secretary say a little more about how normal that is and whether this step might be opening a door for rather more concerning retrospective legislation?

Theresa May: My hon. Friend sneaked in with his intervention as I was nearing the conclusion of my speech. Perhaps I use the term “retrospective” a little loosely. This is not retrospective legislation in that it merely corrects the decision that has recently been made and puts the situation back to what it had been understood to be. That is supported by Liberty, which has said:
	“We do not believe that the proposals are retrospective in their nature as they do not seek retrospectively to create a criminal offence, sanction or other burden. They would, in our view, not fall foul of Article 7 of the European Convention on Human Rights or the common law rule against retrospective penalties.”

Frank Dobson: Does the Home Office, any other part of Government or the Association of Chief Police Officers have any figures to show how many people have been on police bail for, let us say, more than six months and then are not charged?

Theresa May: I am not aware of such figures, but the right hon. Gentleman’s question gives me an opportunity to comment on remarks that some lawyers and others have made as to whether the original judgment is in some way a response to a problem that had been getting worse. I am not aware of such a problem. The rules that we are restoring are those that the police have been operating under for the past 25 years. I say to those who have suddenly raised this issue that if they did feel there was a problem they should have raised it sooner. I also say that this Bill is merely restoring the situation to what it been understood to be for the last 25 years, and that I do not think it is an appropriate vehicle for doing any more than that. We have a task to perform today. The Bill achieves that task, and it is right that it is restricted to that.

David Winnick: I am not necessarily opposed to restoring the position to what it was before the court judgment, but I am always anxious about our rushing through all the stages of a Bill, as we are doing today. The Home Secretary has been very dismissive of critics, but my view is that if there was more time, those critics, who may or may not have a very reasonable case, would be able to put their case to Members and there would be further deliberations before we rushed into making law. I have many hesitations in my mind because, as the Home Secretary herself has admitted, when we have previously rushed through legislation, it has not always proved to be useful.

Theresa May: I understand the point that there have in the past been occasions when emergency legislation has been felt to have had consequences other than what was intended. This is a different kind of emergency legislation however, in that it simply reinstates the situation to
	what it was understood to be for the past 25 years in terms of the operation of PACE and detention and bail. I say to the hon. Gentleman that the Government have done what we can to ensure that there has been an opportunity for the Bill to be considered. I made the draft Bill available to Members and others on Monday, and it was formally introduced on Tuesday. We therefore made it available early so that people would have an opportunity to look at it. It is a very short Bill, and it does not need to be more than a short Bill because, I repeat, it is simply reinstating the situation to what it has been for the past 25 years.
	The judgment in the Hookway case significantly impairs the police’s ability to investigate offences and protect the public. I am not prepared to stand by and ask the police to fight crime with one arm tied behind their back. The Bill will restore vital powers to the police that they have operated under, without complaint from the courts, for the past 25 years. I commend this Bill to the House.

Yvette Cooper: We should take the opportunity to pay tribute to the victims of the 7/7 bombings and to their families, as the anniversary is today.
	The Labour party supports this legislation, as it is needed to overturn the judgment made on 19 May in the case of Greater Manchester police and Paul Hookway. The Home Secretary has set out the judgment’s implications for policing practice and the difficulties of suddenly treating time spent on bail in the same way as time spent in custody, which was clearly not Parliament’s intention when the legislation was drawn up and is clearly not the intention of this House today. The judgment does cause serious problems for policing operations, for ongoing investigations and, potentially, for the delivery of justice and, most seriously of all, for the protection of victims and witnesses. We should pay tribute to the chief constables, the custody sergeants, the other officers and police staff, who are having to deal with this situation as the professionals that they are.
	The situation does mean that the police are not able to recall people from police bail if they have been bailed for more than four days, unless they have new evidence that allows them to re-arrest. It also means that the police are constrained in enforcing bail conditions if the period of up to four days from the initial arrest has elapsed—that has serious implications, especially as 80,000 people are on police bail right now.
	Currently, the police will routinely bail people in ongoing investigations but may need them to return to the police station for further interviews, even where there is no new evidence since the original arrest. They might need them to return for an identity parade or for clarification of a victim’s statement, pending advice from the Crown Prosecution Service. There are many such cases where, in practice, there is no new evidence since the time of the original arrest.
	The situation also raises serious issues in terms of the application of bail conditions, particularly in domestic violence cases, as these conditions can include important protection for the victim. Such conditions could include someone being prohibited from going to their ex-wife’s
	workplace, to the family home or to their children’s school. Bail conditions are an extremely important part of protecting the safety of victims and witnesses, and if they cannot be enforced, protection is put at risk.

Hazel Blears: My right hon. Friend will have heard the response that I received from the Home Secretary. Does my right hon. Friend agree that, if conditions are appropriate to be applied to those suspected of involvement in serious crime, it is illogical and inconsistent if those same conditions are not at least to be considered and to be available to be applied to those suspected—to those “reasonably believed”, under the new test in legislation—to be involved in terrorism-related activity?

Yvette Cooper: My right hon. Friend makes an extremely important point, as we are rightly discussing this measure because of the seriousness of the situation and the need to protect people. In police bail cases, that need often applies in respect of particular individuals—victims and witnesses. In the kinds of terrorism cases that she is talking about, the risk may be much wider and may involve a much wider group of people, so we would expect that additional and even greater protection might be needed. It raises concerns if the security services and police do not have the ability and the powers to provide that protection. She is right in what she says and I know that she is continuing to raise that issue as part of the debate on the other legislation.

Julian Huppert: Does the right hon. Lady agree that the logical consequence of what the right hon. Member for Salford and Eccles (Hazel Blears) was just saying is that we should be trying to use police bail conditions to deal with terrorist cases, as far as is possible and given sufficient safeguards?

Yvette Cooper: There are cases where police bail can, of course, be used and there ought to be cases where we should explore that. Our view remains that there are also cases where that is not possible, which is why we need control orders, the son of control orders or whatever we are calling these things now—we need some other kind of safeguard. Clearly, where more traditional aspects of the criminal justice system can be used instead, they should of course be used. Control orders are always a last resort and should be used only in those circumstances.
	We have seen some worrying cases across the country, and this goes to the heart of why emergency legislation is needed now. Hon. Members are right to say that we should bring in emergency legislation only on the basis of very serious consideration; we should never do this lightly and there are always risks involved. However, Parliament also needs to balance the risks, and there are risks to the public and to the course of justice if we do not legislate now.
	The National Association of Probation Officers has warned of a case where a suspect who is already on a 12-month suspended sentence for assault and who has five previous convictions for offences against the same partner was arrested again for assault. He was bailed while drugs found upon his person were sent off for analysis, but that may take a week and the 96 hours have expired. His victims are deemed at physical risk and it is hugely important, in those circumstances, that bail conditions should be able to apply. Another case
	involves the harassment of a former girlfriend by a suspect who has been arrested and released on bail. His phone and computer were taken for analysis, which takes time—far more time than 96 hours. He is not due back on bail until later this month, but his conditions are not enforceable if the current legal state of affairs persists. I have been told of other cases by police officers, including that of someone arrested as he was accused of sexual assault on women he was supposed to help in the course of his work. Further investigations are under way, but his bail conditions included a requirement that he should have no unsupervised contact with women in his professional capacity and, again, those conditions cannot now be enforced.
	In many cases, bail conditions were used to give people a time and date for returning to the police station for further interview once further evidence was expected to be in place. Now, even though that further evidence might subsequently have been gathered, the police will still have to go out to look for the suspect and take that extra time to bring them in. So, in addition to the risks to justice and to the victims, this situation is placing considerable extra burdens on police time and resources, causing additional pressures for them, too.

David Winnick: My right hon. Friend is making a powerful case for the situation that existed prior to the court judgment, and I do not dispute what she is saying in any way, as public safety is absolutely essential and nobody in this House is going to challenge that view. We are dealing with the substance of the matter, so does she not have a concern about the amount of time that a person can be endlessly bailed for as they return to the police station and that happens again? Would it not be far better, as far as is possible, for charges to be brought as quickly as possible where there is sufficient evidence to do so?

Yvette Cooper: We are talking about wider issues here and, if I may, I will deal with those later. If my hon. Friend wishes to intervene then, I will be happy to take a further intervention from him. I wish to finish the point that I am making and then deal with his point.
	The case for rapid action to resolve the situation is extremely clear. Nevertheless, it is important that we set it out in the House to make it clear to the courts what our view and judgment are. The costs and administrative burdens for the police in trying to manage this interim situation should also not be underestimated. There is also a significant risk that clever defendants or defence lawyers might use that interim period as a way to get off on a technicality, which would mean that justice would not be done, the House and Parliament not having clarified the situation for the police and the courts.
	It would be irresponsible for Parliament to wait longer to deal with the situation. It is not possible for Parliament to take the risk of waiting for the Supreme Court hearing on 25 July, as thousands of domestic violence victims alone need the protection of enforceable bail conditions right now, not in several weeks’ time. So we do support the legislation, as I explained in Parliament on a point of order within hours of learning about the issue eight days ago.
	However, we should reflect on some genuine concerns. We have not proposed any amendments, even probing ones, because we think that the most important thing
	today is to get the legislation on to the statute book and to restore the position for the police and crime victims as soon as possible. However, the House should also have concerns about the possibility of the use of endless police bail. There are cases, and there have been cases, where people have been left on police bail, including with conditions, long after another suspect has confessed to the offence. There are other cases where investigations have run dry but action was not taken to end the bail arrangements. Long bail can sometimes mean that delays are allowed to develop, and they eventually become counter-productive in securing justice.
	Therefore, we should, in due course, have a wider debate about the appropriateness and proportionality of different lengths of police bail and what safeguards are needed. If Parliament, the Government and the police do not have those debates about what we think is appropriate, we risk the courts making those decisions for us. It is important that the police have the powers and the flexibilities to pursue those investigations, but we need to give them support in doing that, and make sure that that is properly reflected in the arrangements that we have. There are issues to do with the fact that the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 has been amended many times and clarity might be needed on wider matters, too. It would be helpful if the Home Office and ACPO considered more closely when, how and for how long police bail is used and whether the current framework is appropriate or needs amending.
	In the meantime, the most important thing is to restore to the police the ability to operate in the way in which they have operated, and with the framework with which they have operated, for several decades.

Stephen McCabe: I accept my right hon. Friend’s point about not tabling any amendments, but given what she has said about the application of bail conditions, is there not a persuasive argument for having a sunset clause in this emergency legislation so that we deal with the immediate problem but have proper time to debate the issues she mentions?

Yvette Cooper: That would have been one way to do it. When the issue came to light last week, we suggested that one option might be to introduce emergency legislation with a sunset clause before considering the subject more widely. The most important thing, given the time we have available, is that the Government have proposed a way to restore the system, and the whole House should support it. I hope that the Government will have further discussions with ACPO about whether any other developments are needed.
	As several hon. Members have said, we should never legislate lightly when it takes retrospective effect. Changing the law retrospectively is, in general, undesirable and creates great uncertainty. It threatens natural justice if people end up breaking a law when they did not know of its existence, when it did not exist at the time the act was committed and when they could not have been expected to know that it would exist.
	I have thought very carefully about the question and I know that members of the Government have, too. I am clear that a retrospective clause is justified in this case. Indeed, I urged the Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice to include a retrospective clause when I
	discussed the issues with him last Thursday. In this case, we are simply restoring the law to what we in Parliament thought it was, to what we intended it to be and to that which the police, the CPS and others have been following in good faith for many years. We have made clear our intention and so in this period of uncertainty the police, suspects and others should know what Parliament intends. If we had not made our intentions clear, we would have opened the police and victims up to considerable uncertainty about the prospects for individual cases, especially those under investigation at the moment. It would be deeply wrong for a victim to be denied justice and for the offender to escape on a technicality simply because the crime was committed in the limbo period between 19 May and Royal Assent and the police interviews did not comply with the temporary legal position owing to any confusion.
	An even more troubling possibility is that historic cases, in which the standard practice was followed in good faith by the police and CPS, could end up being overturned or dragged back through the courts because of the Hookway judgment. In such circumstances, we should legislate retrospectively but we should be clear that we are doing so because we have considered the seriousness of the issue and that we have made the judgment after serious consideration rather than lightly.
	I have some concerns about the process and about why we are doing this now, in such a way. I am concerned about the initial judgment. My right hon. Friend the Member for Salford and Eccles (Hazel Blears) mentioned the judgment of the judge in Salford, which was confirmed by the High Court judge. Judges, not Parliament, interpret the law and it was the role of the High Court judge to come to a view on what the legislation meant. The fact that the judge came to a new view on the interpretation of the law or a different view from experts, such as Professor Zander QC, is still part of the judicial process. It is possible for us to disagree with the judge’s decision while respecting his constitutional role in making such decisions.
	My greatest concern is about the final paragraph of the High Court judge’s judgment, which the Home Secretary quoted. He does not simply interpret the law but makes a practical assessment of the impact of his judgment:
	“It seems to me however...the consequences are not as severe as might be feared in impeding police investigations in the vast majority of cases. This is simply because in the usual case a suspect returning on bail will either be released because the evidence is not sufficient to warrant a charge or he will be re-arrested under statutory powers because new evidence has come to light.”
	I strongly disagree with that practical assessment and the evidence of cases that the police have to handle at the moment disproves it.

Michael Ellis: That does not tally well with the right hon. Lady’s earlier suggestion that the Home Secretary and others have acted in a dilatory fashion, because the judge himself said in his oral judgment that he did not think that the judgment would have those consequences. Was it not right, therefore, to wait for the written judgment and find out what the consequences would be?

Yvette Cooper: No, I disagree. I think that the judge was wrong in that aspect of his judgment. There are serious questions about the fact that there is no sign that he considered any extensive evidence on the practical application of his judgment and about why he did not consider making clear that the judgment should be stayed pending appeal and consideration of the wider evidence. However, that does not go to the heart of the role of the Home Office and the Home Secretary. The Home Office could have done considerable things between the oral statement and the written judgment, rather than simply hoping for the best, which is what it appears officials have done.
	Let me turn to the Government’s response. The oral judgment was given on 19 May and Home Office officials were informed soon after that—certainly before the end of May. The Home Secretary and the hon. Member for Northampton North (Michael Ellis) have claimed that they had to wait for the written judgment, and of course the written judgment brings the decision into effect and can provide further clarity, but that does not mean that everybody has to suspend action and judgment until the written judgment is available. Given what Home Office officials should have known from the oral judgment, they should immediately have notified the CPS and the Attorney-General. The Home Secretary did not explain when she discussed the decision with the Attorney-General or at what point the Attorney-General was made aware of the seriousness of the case.

Michael Ellis: Does the right hon. Lady not appreciate that, at the time of the oral judgment, it could have related only to the instant case before the judge in question? It was only clear later that it would have a wider-reaching effect.

Yvette Cooper: The point is that the Home Office should have prepared. Immediately after the oral judgment was issued, it was possible that there would be concerns and Professor Zander knew enough about the judgment to write a considered view in Criminal Law and Justice Weekly on 17 June. He was clearly extremely worried and on that basis he was already offering advice. Home Office officials should have sought information and should have been concerned even on the basis of the oral judgment.

Theresa May: On a point of clarity, will the right hon. Lady confirm the time line? She just referred to Professor Michael Zander in a way that might give Members the impression that his article was written off the back of the oral judgment. Will she confirm that it was made available after the written judgment?

Yvette Cooper: The article was published on 18 June, following the written judgment becoming available on 17 June. He will have needed time to write it, however, and to seek more information and details about the case; Home Office officials, however, chose not to do that—[ Interruption. ] Hon. Members on the Government Benches might think that this is amusing or a case for dismissing the argument, but they ought to consider the serious consequences for domestic violence victims and police operations across the country. Faced with such circumstances, Home Office officials are obliged to consider that risks are involved. They might not have known the final details until the written judgment arrived,
	but they should have been preparing, asking for further information from the judge and starting to work out options in case Home Office Ministers needed to act fast when the full information became available.

Keith Vaz: Evidence was given to the Select Committee on Home Affairs on Tuesday that a note was written by counsel for Greater Manchester police, which could have alerted officials to a possible issue, but my right hon. Friend would need to have the opportunity to read that note.
	The point I wanted to make was that there is the Treasury Solicitor’s Department, which is headed by the Attorney-General and the Solicitor-General, so there are resources that could have allowed this issue to be looked at when ACPO was taking advice from Clare Montgomery and Steven Kovats. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that is relevant for the future and that, if alarm bells start ringing again, there is machinery in Government to allow the Home Secretary to have the kind of advice we are talking about?

Yvette Cooper: My right hon. Friend is right. He makes his points diplomatically, but the complacency of Home Office Ministers is worrying. They seem to think that they have done everything right in this case, that there have been no delays and that everything has moved as rapidly as possible, but that clearly is not the case. I hope that they will learn lessons for the future from this incident because there clearly has not been rapid movement every step along the way. Whether that applies to what Home Office officials should have done when they received the note on this case, what work they should have done, or what further information they should have sought either from the judge in question or through legal advice at that point, it is their responsibility to prepare options for Ministers, so that Ministers can take rapid judgments, know what their options are and move very fast. That is especially true given the significant risks from this case to the operation of police work and to justice.
	My right hon. Friend’s point about the role of the Treasury Solicitor’s Department is important. The point of having the Attorney-General and those solicitors is to be able to seek additional legal advice from them. The Home Secretary said that it is not normal practice for the Government to confirm whether and when they have sought legal advice, but in fact it is very common for Ministers to say that they have had legal advice from the Attorney-General or others. They might not reveal the detailed content of that advice but in this case the Home Secretary is not even confirming whether she has had or sought separate legal advice or whether the Attorney-General provided any such advice to set out options, so that the Government could move fast and deal with this matter considerably faster than has been the case.

Mark Reckless: Will the shadow Home Secretary accept that the Government and the Home Office were not parties in the proceedings? We can see from the judgment that counsel for Greater Manchester police were asked at the end of the oral judgment whether they would like to apply for a certificate in relation to an appeal. To the extent that questions have to be asked, surely they should be addressed to Greater Manchester police about why they did not apply to the judge for a
	stay or for a certificate despite having been specifically asked about doing so. We should be addressing those questions to Greater Manchester police, who are party to the case, rather than trying to twist this in relation to the Home Office.

Yvette Cooper: The hon. Gentleman is right that there are issues for Greater Manchester police in terms of how fast they respond and react and whether they apply for appeals and stays, but the issue for the Home Office is that, in the end, it matters to the Home Office if policing practice and the protection of victims right across the country are jeopardised. His point goes to the heart of my concerns about the way in which the Home Office and Home Office Ministers have responded. There seems to be an attitude that “We’ll let Greater Manchester police and ACPO do their bit; we’ll just sit back and wait until it all comes to us.” Ministers finally acted only when ACPO said that emergency legislation was needed, rather than Ministers and the Attorney-General recognising that they would have to take responsibility for the consequences. Even if Greater Manchester police did not take the first steps, there was still a responsibility on the Home Office and the Attorney-General to go and talk to Greater Manchester police about whether they had applied for a stay of judgment or appeal. That is where there have been delays and, frankly, incompetence in the way the Home Office has responded.

Bob Stewart: I have sat and listened very carefully to the debate. I am no lawyer but it strikes me that the Government have tried to act as fast as they can. We are having this emergency debate at speed because we have to make sure that when a judge makes a wrong decision we put the law right—first, to protect the public and, secondly, to allow the police to proceed properly. Does the right hon. Lady not agree?

Yvette Cooper: We do have that responsibility, but my reason for continuing to press this point is that these things will come up again because that is the nature of home affairs and Home Office work. There will inevitably be judgments and other issues that cause problems and suddenly raise difficulties in the criminal justice system. We have dealt with them previously, sometimes through emergency legislation and sometimes through other responses. These things happen and the question is whether, when they happen, the response is fast enough or active enough. My concern is that, if the Home Office continues to be complacent about how it has responded, there will be further difficulties in future.
	It is worth considering the time line. We are now seven weeks from the original judgment, three weeks since the written judgment was put in place and two weeks since Ministers were informed. That gap alone between Home Office officials’ being informed of the written judgment, the written judgment’s being published and Ministers’ being told puts Ministers in a deeply difficult position. I have considerable sympathy with the position they were put in when the written judgment came out and was commented on almost the same day by Professor Michael Zander, who said:
	“This is a very unfortunate decision if it is not quickly overturned on appeal it will need to be speedily reversed by legislation.”
	That criminal expert came out with that statement, the written judgment was published and it was still a week
	until Home Office Ministers were even told there was a problem. I think that is of concern and that the Home Office should recognise it is of concern.

David Winnick: Given that my right hon. Friend is giving her full support to the Government, is she at all surprised by how sensitive Conservative Members are to any form of criticism whatever?

Yvette Cooper: My hon. Friend makes an extremely important point. Given the number of Back Benchers who have leapt up to mention, as part of their intervention, “the speedy action from Ministers” and “the fast response from Ministers”, one might think that a Whip’s note has gone around saying that that might be the phrase to put into every intervention, whatever the point might be.
	Our first concern is about the initial delay before the Home Office got the written judgment. I am very clear that more work should have been done between the oral judgment and the written judgment. Then, once the written judgment arrived, there should have been very fast advice to the Home Secretary and the Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice about the risks in this case. Instead, the Home Office seems to have sat on this for a week before Ministers were informed. Once they were informed, it was then important for them to accelerate action because the Home Office clearly had not been acting fast enough before then.
	What did happen once Ministers were informed? We still do not know when the Home Secretary discussed the matter with the Attorney-General and we still do not know why it has taken so long for there to be support via the Attorney-General, working with Greater Manchester police and the Supreme Court, to get an expedited hearing for a stay of judgment. I recognise the point that the Home Secretary made about the stay of judgment. Clearly, a series of different issues are relevant, some of which the Supreme Court has raised in relation to its powers. The Court also raised the issue of timeliness because by the time it was considering a stay of judgment, that judgment had been in place for many weeks. Timeliness is always a factor when the Supreme Court takes decisions and those delays might well have made it harder for the Court to bring in that stay of judgment.

Eleanor Laing: rose —

Yvette Cooper: I shall give way to the hon. Lady, who I am sure will say something about how speedily the Home Office has acted.

Eleanor Laing: No, indeed—I have no Whip’s note or other briefing on this matter whatever. The right hon. Lady was statesmanlike in her opening remarks in supporting what the Government and Parliament are now doing out of necessity and—I am not going to say speedily—as soon as it could be done in Parliament, and the whole House agrees that the Bill must be passed today. Might I point out, however, that whereas the right hon. Lady was statesmanlike in her tackling of the issue, she is now grovelling around looking for party political points to make, which can sometimes be unseemly?

Yvette Cooper: The hon. Lady might think that the speed with which the Home Office has responded is okay, but I think it demonstrates a worrying level of complacency that might cause problems in future. The reason for making that important point about the delays we have seen is that such delays cause risks for victims and the judicial process. At the heart of the matter is the question of whether the Home Office is prepared to take responsibility for justice in this way, or whether it will just sit back and leave it to the police and ACPO.
	The Policing Minister has told us that the Home Office waited for ACPO to conclude that emergency legislation was needed. When he responds, will he state at what point Ministers asked for draft legislation to be prepared, even if only on a contingency basis, because that is important? Ministers should have commissioned emergency legislation on a draft basis as soon as they were informed of the problem and saw the clear advice from Professor Zander that emergency legislation might be needed. Instead, they appear to have waited for ACPO to commission legal advice twice, but it is not just a matter for ACPO. Inevitably, ACPO will always try to make existing legislation work—they are the police and that is their job—but the job of the Home Secretary’s officials was to contingency plan and get emergency legislation on stand-by, yet there is no sign that they did that. Also, they appear to have made no effort to start discussions with the Opposition through the usual channels on how we could get the legislation in as fast as possible. After the Home Secretary was made aware of the situation, it took her a week to raise it with the Opposition and ask whether we would support emergency legislation if needed. The usual channels could have started making contingency plans a week before and we could have had this debate earlier. In the end, the reason for making this point is that in these cases every day matters, because the risks to people who rely on bail protection are considerable and persistent. Therefore, every day matters in how fast we can get this legislation in place.
	We support this legislation, will give it a fair wind through the House today and hope that it gets through the House of Lords as rapidly as possible, but I must say to the Home Secretary that it is important when things go wrong and she has to respond that lessons are learnt so that the same mistakes are not made again. There have been a catalogue of delays at every stage of the process, things could have been done faster and we could have moved to resolve this earlier. Unless the Government recognise those delays, I worry that we will see further problems and risks. The Home Secretary cannot always pretend that everything in her Department is perfect; it will not be, and we all know that. A little more recognition when failings take place and learning from them would help us to have a more effective Home Office and a better criminal justice system for the future.

Nigel Evans: Take two: Lorraine Fullbrook.

Lorraine Fullbrook: I am delighted to have caught your eye for a second time in the past hour, Mr Deputy Speaker.
	We are debating this emergency legislation today because accepted police practice of more than a quarter of a century has been challenged. The legislation is not only vital, but urgent for maintaining the ability of our police forces across the country to do their job of catching criminals and protecting the public they serve. The ruling by High Court judge Mr Justice McCombe on 17 June—that time spent on police bail over any period should count towards the maximum 96-hour limit for pre-charge detention—has destabilised our police and the very heart of our criminal justice system. In the words of the chief constable of West Yorkshire police, this has left officers
	“running around like headless chickens... wondering what this means to the nature of justice.”
	As a Member of the Home Affairs Committee, I was fortunate to hear from some of the most senior police officers in the country about the negative effects that this ruling has on the police and the criminal justice system. A staggering 80,000 people in pre-charge bail cases would be affected by the ruling. In Lancashire, where my constituency is, 2,227 suspects would be affected on pre-charge bail. This Tuesday the Committee heard from Steve Bloomfield, a Metropolitan police commander and the lead in the fallout of this case, and Jim Barker-McCardle, the chief constable of Essex police and the ACPO lead in this area. These professionals, who are truly eminent in their field, outlined the detrimental effects of suspects who would normally be released on bail being detained for longer. They were asked whether the police would have sufficient cell capacity as a consequence of the judgment? Chief Constable Barker-McCardle said that they would have the capacity in the short term—for the next few weeks—but that over a period of months they would cope but with some difficulty.

Mel Stride: On that point, does my hon. Friend also accept that in the case of mass demonstrations and the arrests that accompany them, it is often physically impossible to detain everyone necessary?

Lorraine Fullbrook: My hon. Friend is absolutely right that the fallout from the judgment would be exacerbated by mass arrests resulting from public order incidents. Without this urgent and necessary legislation, we will need more cells than we currently have. Otherwise, suspected criminals will be set free until they commit a further crime. As my hon. Friend has said, the fallout from mass arrests as a result of public order incidents would increase.
	This judgment also puts victims of crime and the general public at greater risk. Chief Constable Barker-McCardle was asked by the Home Affairs Committee whether this was an issue of public safety, to which he responded that it undoubtedly was. He said, “unhesitatingly, unqualified –yes”.
	I was astounded to hear that under the judgment a situation could arise in which a perpetrator of domestic violence would be perfectly able to revisit the home of the initial crime, breaching a bail order, and the police would not be allowed to detain such a person for the breach unless a new offence was committed. Under these circumstances, the perpetrator cannot be detained until a further violent incident occurs. We have a responsibility to victims of domestic violence to ensure
	that this madness is not allowed to continue and that we allow the police to do their job and protect the public from crime.
	I am glad that the Bill is retrospective, which will prevent people taking action in the courts. The judgment prevents the police doing their job and puts victims at greater risk. I am delighted that the Government have introduced the Bill so speedily and with such urgency. I am sure that it will be supported by Members on both sides of the House.
	The judgment by Mr Justice McCombe has upset the balance in our criminal justice system. For 25 years the police have been relied upon to catch criminals and we entrust the courts to ensure that justice is served. This emergency legislation redresses that balance by giving the police the assurance that they can continue to operate in the way they have for many years—protecting the public. I am sure that the House will give the police that assurance today by passing the bill, which is essential to put things right.

Stephen McCabe: I, too, will support the emergency legislation, but two questions seem to have been raised: first, what happened; and secondly, what are the implications of the legislation itself? On the question of what happened, there seem to be two different versions of events. The Government version suggests that they acted within one hour and two minutes, and we have heard a lot of support for that view, with Members telling us about the speed of events. Another version suggests that the clock started ticking on this issue on 5 April, when the judgment was made in the Salford court, and that it has been going on for three months. There has been a crucial judgment, albeit after a 25-year gap, about the interpretation of a piece of parliamentary legislation that identifies a drafting error that no one appears to have spotted in 25 years, which I find slightly strange.

Michael Ellis: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Stephen McCabe: I will in just a second.
	I understand that the Government need to deal with the immediate situation, but I find it slightly strange that we are going to do so by simply sweeping the matter under the carpet, because it is worth holding a debate in the future about how the situation could have occurred.

Bob Stewart: rose —

Robert Buckland: rose —

Stephen McCabe: They are queuing up for me, but I will go first to the hon. Member for Northampton North (Michael Ellis).

Michael Ellis: Does the hon. Gentleman not realise that the alleged drafting error in the 25-year-old Bail Act has been referred to before in learned texts, and that other judges have used common sense in applying the law as they thought Parliament intended? That is where there has been a departure by the judge in the instant case.

Stephen McCabe: All judgments depend on what the judge thinks Parliament intended; that is the point. We have someone who was able to draw a different conclusion, however, and as we have reached this position I am happy to deal with the legislation today, but it would be useful if the Government gave us a further opportunity to debate the implications of the situation.

Robert Buckland: I was going to try to help the hon. Gentleman by saying that the matter had never been ruled upon—it had never been a matter of controversy. Practitioners and everybody involved in the system had assumed that the clock would stop on release from custody, but, for the first time in 25 years, that particular decision was taken and it confounded everybody who has experience of the criminal justice system.

Stephen McCabe: That is largely the same point as the hon. Member for Northampton North made. Does the hon. Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) still wish to intervene?

Bob Stewart: I was going to make just one point—about whether the public have been put at more risk because it has taken some time to bring in this legislation, and about whether the police have been able to manage the situation. It seems that no one has really suffered apart from the police, who have had to manage the situation, and that now we require to put the matter right. If the public have not been put at risk, that is great, and if the police have been able to manage, that is good, too, so let us get the legislation through as fast as we can.

Stephen McCabe: We agree on getting the emergency legislation through; that is why we are here. But it is a little premature to say that no one has been harmed by what has happened, because that remains to be seen.
	It can be argued that what happened on 5 April led to people thinking that they were dealing with a little local difficulty, because that is a perfectly reasonable conclusion to draw, but it is reasonable also to say that, when the judgment was made on 19 May, people should have started to think that it had wider implications and alarm bells should have started to ring. It appears, however, that at that point no alarm bells whatever rang in the Home Office.
	On 24 June, by which time the written judgment was available, no one thought it sufficiently important to be dealt with on the Friday afternoon. The Home Office received it on 24 June and waited until the Monday—the whole weekend—before starting to consider its implications.
	The Home Secretary was dismissive of my comments on Michael Zander’s article, but here was a respected legal expert giving a clear warning on his concerns about the judgment. I do not know whether the Home Secretary knows, and I am quite happy to table a parliamentary question, but I should be really interested to find out whether the Home Office takes that journal, Criminal Law and Justice Weekly . I imagine that it does, and I therefore presume that somebody whom the Home Secretary employs reads it, so we should not be quite as dismissive of Michael Zander’s piece as she suggests.

Mel Stride: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Stephen McCabe: Oh, why not.

Mel Stride: Does the hon. Gentleman not accept, however, that the article was published after the written judgment? That is the critical point.

Stephen McCabe: Presumably, one reason why that guy is one of the country’s leading legal experts is that he, rather remarkably, anticipated such a judgment and was able to give some advice and guidance on what might be necessary if it were so. I am not therefore too concerned with that point.
	Are we seriously being asked to believe that Ministers and officials sit in the Home Office and wait to see whether the police have any concerns, and that if the police do have concerns, they e-mail, phone or send a carrier pigeon to the Home Office at which point Ministers suddenly start to take their responsibilities seriously? If that is what we are being asked to believe, I have a suggestion for the Home Secretary: why does she not make some cuts by sacking some of her useless officials, rather than police officers? It sounds as if they are not serving her particularly well.
	The hon. Member for Beckenham, who has left his place, asked whether it was true that no one had been harmed as a result of the judgment. We do know, as the Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice said, that 80,000 criminal suspects were affected by the decision, and the implications of it are one obvious reason why we are here today.
	I am not entirely sure that I agree with the hon. Member for South Ribble (Lorraine Fullbrook), who said that there were no problems with detention, because earlier this week I read a report stating that, certainly in the west midlands, the police are decommissioning detention cells as a result of the budgetary savings that they are required to make, so in some parts of the country there may be pressure on police cells as a result of the situation.

Lorraine Fullbrook: I was citing evidence that was given to the Home Affairs Committee, and the hon. Gentleman, as a fellow member of the Committee, was at the relevant session on Tuesday.

Stephen McCabe: The hon. Lady may remember that during the same evidence session the police officer concerned referred to 5,000 as opposed to 80,000, but under further examination we discovered that he was talking about the Met police area rather than the whole country.
	I plan to support the legislation, because we are where we are and I do not want to make the job of the police any more difficult. The Government’s police cuts, in what looks like a concerted attack on Britain’s policing institutions, are making their job hard enough, and I have no desire to make it any worse, but I do not accept the Government’s version of the events that brought us here.
	I have a question about how the emergency legislation has been framed. Earlier, the Home Secretary cited Liberty as an organisation that supported it, and I think I am right that Justice is one of the others, but Liberty makes an interesting case about the lack of safeguards in the legislation and a persuasive case for a sunset clause, whereby we deal with the immediate problem
	but then, at a more leisurely pace, look at the wider issues. Given that the problem went undetected for 25 years, that may be a worthwhile route to pursue.
	On the retrospective nature of the legislation, I agree that it is necessary in order to deal with those 80,000 cases—and probably even more so in order to deal with what happens between now and 12 July, when it comes into effect. However, our law—I think this is the point that the hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) was alluding to—relies on citizens being able to predict in advance when the act of a public authority will be lawful. Introducing a retrospective clause, albeit for understandable reasons, creates a situation whereby something that someone was doing yesterday, reasonably assuming it to be lawful, could be unlawful tomorrow, so that retrospectively they could suffer the consequences. That has major implications for the way in which citizens should view their relationship with the state. I do not object to the retrospective aspect, but it leads to an argument for a sunset clause so that we could have an opportunity, at some point in the future, to consider the implications of having to make such judgments.
	Members have mentioned the problem of the length of time for which people may be held on police bail, particularly where it has conditions attached. The shadow Home Secretary used the example of bail restrictions designed to protect the victim from the alleged offender in domestic violence cases. I can understand that. However, I can think of a case in my constituency where a constituent had a bail order applied to him for over 12 months, and one of its restrictions was that he could not use his bank account because the case involved a fairly complex fraud. As a result, he had immense difficulty in meeting his daily living expenses. In the end, all the charges were dropped and he was never brought to court for anything at all. There is already a provision in PACE whereby, when the police apply for an extension, they have to give assurances that they will not take undue time in dealing with the matter and having excessive periods of bail.
	These provisions raise once more the issue of bail conditions. We are putting through legislation to deal with a very particular crisis, but in the course of examining it we are opening up wider questions that would merit a much broader debate at some point in the future. Even at this stage, the Government could consider a sunset clause. They are getting absolute co-operation today in dealing with the immediate problem that we face: whether that is partly their own fault or entirely the fault of the courts is a matter of debate. In return for that, the emergency legislation should be used only very sparingly. It is not unreasonable for Parliament to say that the issues that are raised while emergency legislation is being passed should be subject to much greater debate and scrutiny in future.

Tom Brake: Let me start, Mr Deputy Speaker, by apologising to you and to other Members for my brief absence from the Chamber. I had to attend the Programming Sub-Committee on the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill. I must say that the process that took place therein would not have been out of place in a “Carry On” film.
	As Members will know, we are having this debate because the High Court has ruled that suspects cannot be bailed for longer than four consecutive days, or 96 hours. That decision comes after a ruling from Salford magistrates court that the police could not detain suspect Paul Hookway again because his “detention clock” had been running while he was on bail—a ruling that has immediate effect. It is clear that the damage that this would have done to police investigations had we not taken the action that we are taking would have been very substantial in stopping the police being able to keep track of a suspect while they continued their investigations, collected new evidence, and so on. Given that that would have affected more than 85,000 people across England and Wales, it was clearly necessary for us to debate emergency legislation and implement it as soon as possible.
	However, I would like to take this opportunity to raise some concerns. Liberty’s briefing, which I support, includes the perhaps understated comment that it is
	“somewhat surprising that this appears to be the first time that the issue has arisen in the 25 years that the PACE Act has been in force.”
	Indeed, other Members have made that point. It is concerned about having a requirement to stick to a consecutive 96-hour period, stating:
	“Unduly limiting the period for which a suspect may be bailed by police could have the effect of encouraging premature or inappropriate charging with all the injustices that would flow. It could also have the effect of encouraging police to detain for the maximum (96 hour) period in circumstances where a suspect could be released earlier thereby supporting prolonged detention rather than release on bail.”
	Those are genuine concerns which have been supported in other representations that I have received. Although the action we are taking is necessary, there is no possibility today of our debating and perhaps amending these clauses to reflect some of the concerns about the use of police bail. Liberty goes on to say:
	“While 96 hours may well be too short a limit to allow effective further investigation in more complicated cases, it should not be the case that police bail can go on forever.”
	It also notes that
	“police bail can have attached to it a number of highly onerous conditions.”
	I should like to refer to a couple of anonymised cases that highlight some of the issues of police bail and, in some cases, its very extended use. A barrister contacted me to say that he was aware of a serious fraud case where certain suspects were on bail for a period of two years and 10 months, and released from it only recently when a trial of some of the other suspects in the same investigation ended with acquittals or a hung jury. He referred to another case in which he was instructed where the period was 18 months—from December 2007 to the point of charge in June 2009. He accepts that investigations will sometimes take a long time to progress, particularly in cases involving high-value frauds, as in the two that he cited, which I have now put on the record. He goes on to highlight the pernicious impact of police bail, particularly regarding the obtaining of restraint orders for the assets of the accused. He says that although there will be occasions where such restraint orders are justified, perhaps to ensure that criminal assets are not dissipated, their impact is substantial and
	can sometimes affect the ability of the accused to pay their mortgage, for instance—and of course such people often remain unconvicted.
	It is legitimate, in the limited time available to us, to raise those points and to flag up the fact that while emergency legislation is necessary, we need to be careful about the implications of police bail and its uses and to ensure that it is not abused. Liberty says in its briefing that we might at some point—it suggests in the Protection of Freedoms Bill—want to consider a statutory time limit on the use of police bail. It suggests that the statutory limit for pre-charge bail should be set at six months. I am not sure whether I support that contention—I suspect that in fraud cases, in particular, it would be rather hard to deliver and perhaps insufficient—but it might be appropriate for us to debate the subject at a later date.

Robert Buckland: A potential solution to that issue would be the imposition of a time limit in most cases, unless there was a particular element, for example fraud, which would bring the applicants back to court to apply for an extension. That could be a way around the problem that my hon. Friend is so eloquently adumbrating.

Tom Brake: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his helpful intervention. He is knowledgeable in these matters, and I am sure that what he suggests would be an appropriate solution.
	The Law Society has also made representations to Members. As well as supporting a length of time for which pre-charge police bail applies, it is keen that the police should admit people to pre-charge bail only when it is necessary. If people voluntarily accept that they must attend, it may not be necessary to put pre-charge bail conditions in place.
	It is clear that there is an urgent need to implement this emergency legislation. I am pleased that the Government are taking urgent action on this matter, and I wish the Bill a speedy passage through the House today.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Nigel Evans: Order. Seven Members wish to speak and I will call the Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice at 10 minutes to 3, because the debate is time-limited. Members should therefore be considerate of other Members who wish to speak.

Keith Vaz: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake). I congratulate him on the recent announcement of his elevation to the Privy Council.
	The Home Secretary is in the enviable position of coming to the Dispatch Box with the support of Opposition Front Benchers—who seem to have disappeared temporarily; they are hiding behind the Chair—and that of the Liberal Democrat spokesman, ACPO, Liberty and every police officer in the country. The only person missing is His Holiness the Pope. Everybody seems to accept that it is vital that the Government get the
	legislation through as speedily as possible, within the time frame that was set out by the Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice. I thought he was very generous in saying that we would have until 3 o’clock to complete our debate, because everyone who has spoken so far has said that they agree absolutely with everything that the Government are doing, as do I. I shall learn from my own lesson by speaking as briefly as I can.
	I thank the Home Secretary for showing great courtesy to the Home Affairs Committee. She promised us a copy of the draft Bill by 6 o’clock on Monday and we received it. She then appeared before the Select Committee on Tuesday. This may seem like déjà vu because there are so many members of the Select Committee here. In fact, we could adjourn the House and straight away be quorate. This is a model not just for emergency legislation, but for the way in which the Government should deal with Select Committees. If she carries on like this, our next report might have to recommend her for canonisation. [ Interruption. ] Steady on. I said only that we might have to recommend her for canonisation.

David Winnick: There would be a vote against, I can assure my right hon. Friend.

Keith Vaz: I am sure that there would be a vote against it, probably led by my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall North (Mr Winnick).
	It is important that Parliament is kept informed. The fact that this legislation had to be scrutinised in this way meant that the Home Secretary’s presence this week was very helpful.
	Government Members need to be mindful of the fact that Opposition Front Benchers are supporting the Government on this matter. Government Members were a little unfair to the shadow Home Secretary. It is right that she is able to raise issues concerning the time line. Select Committee members from both sides of the House necessarily raised that issue with the Home Secretary on Tuesday, and indeed with the chief constable of Essex and the commander in the Met who deals with these matters. I commend the hon. Member for South Ribble (Lorraine Fullbrook) and my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe) for their speeches. Although they disagreed on issues concerning the time line, there was absolute agreement with what the Government propose, just as there is unanimous support for it in the Select Committee.
	I want to raise two issues with the Home Secretary. The first relates to the position of the Attorney-General and the importance of Law Officers being involved in this process. As the Home Secretary said and as I know from being a Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Attorney-General and the Solicitor-General and a junior Minister in the Lord Chancellor’s Department in the last Government, advice given by the Attorney-General or Solicitor-General is by its nature confidential to the Government. However, when this case was first decided on in Salford, I think it was incumbent on Greater Manchester police, who had conduct of this matter, to inform Home Office officials about it, and I am sure that they did. I have not checked the time line, but I am sure that is what they said they did. The Home Office officials should then have consulted the law officers. After all, the Attorney-General and Solicitor-General
	have superintendence over the Director of Public Prosecutions, whose role is extremely important in these matters.
	I am sure that if the hon. Member for Rochester and Strood (Mark Reckless) catches your eye, Mr Deputy Speaker, he will talk about the role of ACPO in this matter. Of course we are interested in the role of ACPO, because under the new landscape of policing, ACPO will be reformed. In making this legislation, we are putting a lot of faith in the advice given to ACPO by two Queen’s counsel, and in the advice that it gave Ministers. The chief constable of Essex clarified after the evidence session that he finally told the Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice last Thursday that it was time to go back to the House to pass legislation, which is what the Minister told the House last Thursday. The chief constable had originally told the Committee in open session that it was the day after when he finally made up his mind.
	I do not think that these issues ought to be left to ACPO. They are serious issues that ought to occupy the time of Home Office officials. I hope that Home Office officials in this case did alert the Law Officers. I am not asking for a time line from the Minister when he replies, but it would be nice to know whether that happened. I believe that the Law Officers and the Treasury Solicitor’s Department have a role in this, because at the end of the day, it is they who have to go to the courts to represent the Government. I accept what the Home Secretary says and that she has no locus standi in these matters, but this needs to be kept under review. If we look to the future rather than the past, and accept that what the Government have to do, as outlined by the Home Secretary, is the right approach, we should be aware that these things may well happen in the future. I know about the points made by Professor Michael Zander. I have not put down a parliamentary question to ask whether The Criminal Law Review, where he wrote his article, is standard reading in the Home Office or the Law Officers’ Department.

Theresa May: The right hon. Gentleman is setting out his concerns in relation to the time line, and much has been made by his right hon. and hon. Friends on this matter. Every reference is being made to the legal advice. I am sure that with his immense experience at the Home Affairs Committee, he will accept the role that ACPO had, not only in seeking its own legal advice, but in looking at the operational implications. Understanding whether the police could operationally work within the judgment was a crucial part of the decision making in this matter.

Keith Vaz: The Home Secretary is absolutely right; the operational decisions have to be taken by ACPO. I just say to her that in her new landscape, ACPO’s role will change. She may therefore want to consider whether this area should be led by whatever ACPO becomes or whether it should be another part of the new landscape. This issue might happen again. I want to make it absolutely clear that none of this is the fault of Ministers. We raise the time line only—at least I raise the time line only—because should this happen again, we may need to look at the way in which things develop.
	On that note, I will terminate my speech, Mr Deputy Speaker, so that I can earn some brownie points for the future.

Nicola Blackwood: It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz). As always, I agree with much of what he says, if not quite all.
	I rise, of course, to speak in support of the Bill. It has yet to be made entirely clear to me exactly how it could have been thought appropriate to put public safety at risk for the sake of a literalist interpretation of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 that flies in the face not only of the intentions of Parliament in passing the Act in the first place but of a full quarter-century of practice and interpretation of it by police, defence lawyers and judges up and down the country. Surely if Hansard could not have acted as a guide, case law might have served that purpose. I accept that sections 41 to 44 of the Act may leave the point unclear on the face of it, but given that parliamentary debates show the clear original intention that a suspect should be detained and questioned for 96 hours in total, rather than for only 96 hours following arrest, not to mention the precedent of 25 years of criminal law, one would have hoped for a little common sense, especially considering the stakes at hand.
	As has been stated, Mr Justice McCombe was of the opinion that the consequences of his judgment were
	“not as severe as might be feared”.
	I am afraid that, as has also been pointed out, that was not the view of the chief constable of Essex, who is the ACPO lead on police bail, or of Commander Steve Bloomfield of the Met, who gave evidence to the Home Affairs Committee on the subject on Tuesday. They are of the opinion that not only does the ruling throw into disarray the investigation and case management of the more than 80,000 suspects in this country who are currently on police bail, but it renders any conditions attached to that bail all but unenforceable.
	That has deeply worrying public protection implications for victims and witnesses of violent crimes, and particularly for victims of domestic abuse. Suspects who have been arrested for domestic violence-related offences and released on bail are likely to have conditions attached to that bail, designed to protect their victim. In the absence of those conditions, the police have lost not only part of the time needed to investigate and build solid cases against violent offenders, but a tool used to protect victims and witnesses while they do it.
	I know that ACPO has issued guidance to police forces on how to protect victims and witnesses in the short time that remains until the Bill is passed, but will the Minister give the House an assurance that the Home Office is doing everything it can to offer additional support to ensure that victim and witness protection is in no way compromised by this irresponsible judgment?
	It is entirely appropriate, in this case, that the Bill is retrospective. In almost every other instance retrospective legislation would be controversial, but in this case I believe the Bill is intended merely to create continuity, not to create new taxes or offences. As I understand it, the retrospective nature of the Bill is necessary to ensure that no criminal cases or convictions that have proceeded in the gap between the initial judgment and the passing of the Bill are rendered unsafe. I wonder whether, in his winding-up speech, the Minister might be able to confirm that.
	From looking into this issue, the only area of the bail system that seems to me to need further consideration that will be impossible within the context of the Bill is the issue of time limits and overly onerous conditions. At the moment there are no statutory time limits on bail, and there are uncertain guidelines for magistrates as to appropriate conditions to be placed on bail. As a result, a suspect could theoretically be left on bail indefinitely. Although I am aware that the Crown Prosecution Service must charge someone suspected of a summary offence within six months, it seems to me that the current system of indefinite bail should be considered in the context of wider policing and justice reforms in future.
	I will close now, so that we can make progress. Needless to say, I think it is entirely appropriate that this emergency legislation has been brought forward today, to make it absolutely clear that the detention clock may be stopped by bail. It is not just a matter of convenience for the police; it is a matter of justice and public protection.
	Bailing suspects while police continue investigations ensures that police are not pressured into premature or inappropriate charging that could result in all manner of miscarriages of justice. It means that police are not tempted to try to detain people for the maximum 96 hours needlessly, when release on bail would be more proportionate to the offence and would not pose any risk to the public. Most importantly, bailing suspects with conditions means that victims, witnesses and potential victims of violent offences can be better protected by the police while the case against an offender is investigated and a conviction secured. The Bill will help the police do their job better and keep the public safer, and as such it has my full support.

Frank Dobson: It is the anniversary of the bomb outrages of 7 July, and the bulk of the people who were killed and maimed in those outrages were in my constituency. That is one reason why I would not want anything to happen that made life and work more difficult for our police service. Like the ambulance service and the fire service, the police are different from the rest of us. When something disastrous occurs, the rest of us prudently run away. The police, like the firefighters and ambulance crews, rush in the opposite direction to offer aid and assistance. Nothing that I say should be interpreted as being against the police.
	I welcome the Bill and accept the need to clarify the law so that it is what everyone thought it was when it was passed by the House 25 years ago. If there was any ambiguity in it, I think I am the only guilty party present in the House today. I was a Member at that time, and I do not think anyone else here was.
	Clearly, being on bail is better than being in jail, but being on bail is being not quite free. A considerable number of people are released on police bail and eventually turn out not to be guilty of anything. We need to remember that bail is applied to our fellow citizens, and we need to try to protect them from what is unreasonable. I have had cases drawn to my attention in the past few years of people on greatly protracted periods of bail. I do not believe that that is acceptable.
	It seems to me that there has been a gradual build-up of protracted periods of bail. My understanding is that neither the Home Office nor the police have the faintest idea whether that is true, because they do not have any figures. I urge the Minister to accept that it would be a sound idea for the Home Office to start collecting such figures, so that we have a measure of the problem. Clearly, given the need to clarify the law urgently, we do not have the opportunity now to consider properly what constraints might be put in place to protect people against unjustifiably protracted periods of bail, but we need to consider introducing such constraints.
	There might be objections to making the extension of bail subject to a judicial process, because in at least some cases the police might not wish to disclose publicly at that point what evidence was available to them. However, we do need some constraints, and I wonder whether the Minister will accept that if he takes advice from ACPO, he might also give it some advice so that the chief police officers take more seriously the problem of protracted bail. We could say, for instance, that if bail goes beyond a year, it has to be renewed with the specific personal consent of the chief constable of the area concerned. That might turn out to be a useful management tool, because it would draw to the attention of the chief constable how many cases were particularly protracted.
	I hope that we can at least agree in principle that in future, we need some measurement and logging of protracted periods of bail, and some constraint on them. We owe that to our fellow citizens. It is always worth remembering that all the people who are on bail are innocent until charged and found guilty. They are our fellow citizens, and we need to remember that.
	I strongly support the Bill, but I hope that we will consider the problem much more seriously and at greater length, and perhaps with a little more sympathy for people who are out on bail, in the near future. It is not something that we can knock forward for another 25 years.

Gareth Johnson: It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Frank Dobson). I am sure that he would agree that the reason for this debate is a surprising decision by the High Court that clearly needs to be overturned. The decision highlights the problems that can occur when courts use the literal rule when interpreting Acts of Parliament, and do not look closely enough at Parliament’s intention. It is regrettable that in this case, Parliament’s intention did not prevail over the literal interpretation of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984.
	The Hookway case effectively prevents the police from bailing someone for more than 96 hours. Clearly, that situation cannot be allowed to prevail. I spent many years working in the criminal justice system, and I have dealt with a number of warrants for further detention. In my experience, they are not rubber-stamped by the magistrates courts, but very carefully considered. They are also fairly rare, and even rarer when the suspect has previously been on bail. However, the decision in Hookway has clear implications far beyond that case, hence what was previously a necessary intention to change the judgment because of a narrow interpretation of the case very rapidly became an urgent necessity, because of the wider implications that we now know exist in Hookway.
	One area where that judgment will have the greatest impact is, I believe, identity parades. Suspects are often released on bail so that they can return for ID procedures to be carried out. They are booked into custody for that to happen, at which stage the detention clock recommences. The Hookway case actually prevents that from happening —it has stopped a perfectly logical ID parade procedure from taking place in future—and undermines all the work that has taken place to provide effective ID parades.
	The case also affects procedures when suspects are bailed more generally, because they are usually placed temporarily and technically back into custody when charging takes place. That cannot now occur without adequate revision of the Hookway case, which the Bill seeks to implement.
	During the debate, it has been said a number of times that the police can detain initially for a 24-hour period after the custody sergeant has given his authorisation. That is correct, but it is also the case that it is subject to a review by an inspector after a six-hour period, and then twice more after successive nine-hour periods have elapsed. The checks and balances that we want to see in place exist while a suspect is in police custody, and indeed thereafter.
	I therefore support the Bill. The only danger is that it could be misinterpreted—the police might believe that there is no longer a requirement for them to act in an expeditious manner. I sincerely hope that the police will not see the Bill as some sort of green light to keep suspects on bail for an inordinate period before any charging decision is made. That was the point that my hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon (Mr Buckland) tried to make—he came up with some suggestions on how we can ensure that there is adequate provision to prevent that from happening, and to ensure that there is a greater degree of certainty than is currently in place. Liberty is suggesting that a period of six months should be the maximum. Like my hon. Friend, I am cautious about having a prescribed period, but there needs to be clear justification when suspects are kept on bail for lengthy periods. We would all agree that that situation helps neither the suspect nor the victim of the crime.
	I have dealt with numerous situations in which people have been bailed for the inordinate periods that my hon. Friend mentioned. There is little recourse for those people, other than making a lengthy and costly judicial review application to the High Court. They simply have to suffer that inordinate delay and return again and again to the police station, waiting, and sometimes hoping and pleading, for a decision to made in their case.
	One positive aspect of this situation is the opportunity it has given to us to look at the issue of the length of police bail and the issues that surround it. I hope that we can look for some improvements in future.

Julian Huppert: I shall try to be brief, so that we can conclude the debate. I support the Bill, for the reasons that have been set out admirably by right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House. I am concerned about any form of exceptional legislation—it is something that we should always be extremely guarded about, whatever the reason for it is—but this is exceptional legislation, and I understand
	absolutely why we need it. There is no issue with that, but I have a number of concerns about police bail in its wider sense, as has been discussed. I shall therefore not focus on the legal niceties of the Hookway case—that has been discussed already—but I want to say a few things about police bail in the wider sense.
	First, the Bill is clearly a necessary clarification of the law—there is no doubt about that. Looking at previous legislation, it is clear that the Hookway case is a matter of interpretation. The best thing to do is to make its interpretation easier for judges and lawyers in future. I am tempted to talk about how legislation is drafted in this country—we do not always seek to avoid such problems—but I will restrain myself from doing so in any great detail.
	My one concern is the retrospective nature of the Bill and saying that the amendments are
	“deemed always to have had effect”.
	I should like to place on record my gratitude to the Home Secretary for clarifying that in her earlier remarks, but I want to flag up now that we should be very cautious and careful in examining anything that purports to be retrospective. We should not allow it to sail past, but carefully ask questions about the rationale for such measures.
	One question that I did not put to the Home Secretary, but to which the Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice will perhaps respond, is on a topic in which I am not normally interested: the royal diary. Are we clear exactly when we will get Royal Assent to the Bill?
	There is urgent need for wider reform in this area, and I hope the Government return to it, and that they do not end with this Bill.
	My second point is that it was absolutely right for a number of leading lawyers, including a former Solicitor-General, to today raise concerns about some of the abuses of police bail. I do not agree with their comments on the Bill—they called for it not to go through, but I believe that it is absolutely necessary—but the Home Secretary needs to introduce greater safeguards to prevent abuse of such wider powers.
	The Bill returns us to a position in which there is no statutory time limit, as we have already discussed, and the police can impose a number of conditions. That means that police bail can be very oppressive. I am particularly concerned about that in the context of peaceful protest. In the past couple of years, we have seen a number of cases of the use of pre-emptive arrest before planned, legal and peaceful protests. In 2009, 114 environmental protesters were arrested at the Iona independent school in Sneinton, Nottingham. They were arrested shortly before a planned protest at an E.ON power station. They were then released without charge on police bail, which prevented them from getting involved with the protest. Potentially, restrictive police bail conditions give police the cumulative power to extinguish the right of peaceful protest—especially for time-sensitive demonstrations—which we should all wish to see supported. There was a similar case of police bail during the occupation of Fortnum & Mason on 26 March this year, which I have discussed in the Home Affairs Committee.
	I agree with Liberty and other hon. Members who say that we should consider a time limit. That time limit should be proportionate both to the complexity and the
	severity of the case. This is not the Bill to do that, as obviously we could not use it to do the issue justice, but I hope that we could consider it in the plethora of other Home Office Bills before Parliament. It would be simple to do it via the Protection of Freedoms Bill or the Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Bill. One could also look at the issue of bail for immigration in that context, because there are some questions about that that need to be looked at.
	There is a slightly bizarre lacuna, introduced by the last Government, in the police bail powers, which is that pre-charge police bail is not allowed in terrorism-related cases. It is important to mention that today, the sixth anniversary of the London bombings, because we have made a mess of how we deal with terrorism cases. We have warehoused people under a system outside the normal legal framework. I have argued that we should use the police bail system, which offers similar restrictions and controls to what is proposed in control orders and the Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Bill. It differs in detail, of course, but it does fit within the normal legal framework. I was delighted by the comments of the shadow Home Secretary—in stark contrast to the shadow Minister on the Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Bill—when she agreed that police bail should be explored where it can be used for terrorism offences. That is a great step forward. It may not be appropriate in every single case, but we should have a system—with appropriate safeguards, via the Home Secretary’s applications, as I outlined in the Bill Committee—so that police bail could be used when possible for terrorism cases. That would help to move us towards a normal legal process.
	I well understand the urgency behind the Bill and I do not wish to detain the House any longer. I urge the Home Secretary to consider all the issues that have been raised and the importance of getting police bail right, when the rush is over. We need to ensure that we safeguard peaceful protest, improve our national security and restore our liberty. It would be great to do all that at once. If we controlled police bail better, we could use it in terrorist cases to give us due legal process, security and liberty, as well as more of the normal rule of law.

Robert Buckland: The liberty of the individual should be a matter for this place first and foremost, so the fact that this is emergency legislation should not be a cause of embarrassment or shame—it should be welcomed. Judges have an important role in interpreting the law. Their role is primarily to interpret rather than to enact. That is why I am entirely content that it is this place that will make the important decision about the ambit of police bail. It is not a matter for shame, but nor is it quite a matter for celebration, bearing in mind the fact this House is a busy place and we have a lot of work to do.
	It should perhaps be a matter for quiet reflection that it is the primacy of the legislature that matters when it comes to fundamental issues of liberty—that is what we are dealing with today—and the constant balance that we have to maintain between liberty and the public interest in being protected from crime and its consequences, however minor or serious. I was glad to be reminded by
	the right hon. Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Frank Dobson) about the sad anniversary that we have reached today.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Gareth Johnson), in his excellent contribution drawn from years of experience as a criminal practitioner, made some important practical points about the problems that would quickly come about if the House did not take swift action. The examples that he gave—including the identification procedure problem—were well made and do not need repeating by me. However, on a more fundamental level, one aspect that perhaps we have not emphasised today is the interests of the victims and witnesses of crime. In many cases, they give the police statements and then have to wait an inordinate length of time before they know the outcome of the case or are called to court to give evidence. That is one of the main problems encountered day in, day out by courts across the land when dealing with some of the delays caused by readmission to police bail by suspects, sometimes for an inordinate length of time.
	The debate comes at an opportune moment because it gives us a chance to look at the whole ambit or spectrum of police bail, not only from the point of view of the suspect or the defence lawyer, but from the point of view of the victim of crime, the complainant or witness, waiting anxiously. In many cases, I have seen the frustration of judges when they hear that decisions about charge have been put off time and again, causing witnesses to lose heart or to lose interest. Sometimes cases fail at that final stage in court, and that is unforgiveable from a variety of perspectives, but most of all from the public interest perspective. That is why the points made today about limits on police bail were well made and deserve serious consideration as we proceed.
	The challenge facing the court in Salford was one that the learned judge himself described in paragraphs 18 and 19 of his judgment as being of “limited application”. That was the view of the learned High Court judge, and it was a view that, on examination by Professor Zander, was challenged. A debate then began. Professor Zander is an eminent academic and has enjoyed a peon of praise today from hon. Members on both sides of the House—I am sure that he is enjoying every minute of it. It is thoroughly deserved, but I think that he would agree that to elevate his article to advice status would overplay it. In my view, he opened a welcome debate on the effects of the judgment. It is a debate that Mr Justice McCombe put himself on the other side of by dint of his remarks in paragraph 18 and 19. With respect to the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), it is a little trite to suggest that the consequences of the decision were set in stone some weeks ago. The position only became clear when that debate was initiated, and I think that the Government are to be congratulated on taking effective action.
	The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 was seminal legislation. It was not drafted on the hoof, but put together after many months of careful work and input from all sections of those interested in the criminal justice system. It was a game-changer in so many important ways. It was progressive legislation that, at a stroke, made clear and transparent certain procedures that had often seemed in the police station obscure and frankly worrying not only to suspects but to police officers themselves. It was a Conservative Government—the
	noble Lord Brittan was Home Secretary and his Minister of State was the noble Lord Hurd—who steered that excellent legislation through the House. It has stood the test of time admirably.
	As with all legislation scrutinised by the House, however, the 1984 Act might be found to be only human. I am reminded of the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Nicola Blackwood). She was right to say that the Act was silent on the effect of section 44. We all have to concede that. After Royal Assent, however, practitioners and everybody concerned with the process came to the assumption—the right assumption, I think—that the clock would stop and start as long as the suspect was in police detention, and that the concept of time was not absolute but relative to the time spent in detention. That was well understood by everybody in the system. For 25 years that assumption will have been made by practitioners from the humblest junior solicitor to the highest of High Court judges. They need make no apology for having done so.

Nicola Blackwood: To be clear, is it not the case that that assumption arose not out of thin air or a desire for convenience, but out of the fact that that was the intention made clear in parliamentary debates at the time?

Robert Buckland: That is indeed the case, as was helpfully set out in Professor Zander’s article, where he took the trouble to remind himself of the case of Pepper v. Hart, which allows judges to look at Hansard if there is any ambiguity about the intention of the legislature. Unlike the judge in the decision in question, he examined Hansard and found buried in the debates in what were then called Standing Committees—the predecessor title, as it were, of Public Bill Committees—a clear understanding on the part of all parties. It was the former Member for Birmingham, Ladywood, Miss Short, who tabled an amendment designed to ensure that the suspect would be detained for no more than 96 hours, and the then Minister of State, now the noble Lord Hurd, who responded. It was quite clear from that debate that there was an understanding that time would stop and start according to when the suspect was in detention.
	With respect to the learned High Court judge, that debate would have assisted him in his deliberations and given him great comfort and support in coming to what we would all have regarded as a purposive decision—that is, a decision that would have given purpose to the intention of the legislators and reinforced a quarter of a century of practice. Sadly, we know that that was not the case, although we should hesitate before rushing to criticism of our judges. They have a tough job to do. They have to make decisions day in, day out. They are presented with a range of different scenarios and cases. I do not think that anyone should rush to criticise the judiciary in that respect because of one difficult case. However, I return to the point that I made at the beginning of my speech. I am glad that it is this place—this House—that is reinforcing and reiterating the law as we have all understood it to be, and which will now, in my submission, be put beyond any doubt whatever.
	I know that voices outside this place have urged caution on us in rushing this legislation through, although a lot of their concerns have been addressed in the remarks made by other Members today, which I will
	not repeat. I have made some suggestions about the potential limitations on police bail—for example, in cases that do not involve a large amount of documentation or serious fraud—but I want to return to straightforward examples of cases involving violence or assault, where far too often, over-cautious lawyers have waited before charge for all the evidence to be gathered, including medical evidence. Frankly, my suggestion to them is to remember how we used to do it. We would charge and then gather the evidence as quickly as possible, to ensure that we did not lose the interest, enthusiasm and participation of prosecution witnesses along the way.
	The coalition Government quite rightly restored the decision-making power for certain offences to the police. That was a wise decision, which I believe will allow minds to be focused in the police station when dealing with a range of less serious offences. That will leave more serious offences to be dealt with by the Crown Prosecution Service as part of the advice-before-charge procedure. At that stage, everybody needs to remember what we have said today in this House and elsewhere about the need for expedition and the need for good judgment to be exercised, even though all the evidence might not have been gathered.
	I will draw my remarks to a close. I support giving the Bill its Second Reading, and I think that we as a House should be glad that such decisions are falling to us.

Tobias Ellwood: It is important that we should have this debate. There has been a lot of discussion about why this has been rushed through in the way that it has. We are here to amend the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. The sole purpose is to clarify the distinction between periods of detention and periods of police bail. I want to add my concern about rushed legislation and fast-tracking Bills. It was before my time, but I can certainly remember the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 going through—as well as legislation to deal with handguns—at a time when Governments wanted to be seen to be doing something, rather than amend the law in a correct and measured way. It is important when we debate legislation to ensure that there is time to digest the impact, make amendments and allow the public and other interested groups to comment on what is going on.
	This, however, is a simple and straightforward Bill. In fact, I have never seen such a short Bill. It consists of one page containing two clauses, the second of which simply deals with the geographical reach of the measure and confirms the Bill’s full name. Indeed, the explanatory notes are longer than the Bill. It is none the less an important Bill. It looks at periods of detention in England and Wales, wherein a suspect can be detained initially for up to 24 hours, and for a further 12 hours if approved by a senior officer such as a superintendent. Detention for a further 36 hours can be applied for through a magistrates court, which can then be added on, giving a total cap of 96 hours, at which point the detention clock, as it has been labelled, stops.
	At that point, the police have the option either to charge the suspect or to release them, or to place them on bail. We previously assumed that the detention clock paused when that bail was imposed, and restarted after the bail period was complete. However, we now face a new interpretation of the 1984 Act. Following the murder
	case involving Paul Hookway, Salford magistrates court has thrown a different light on the provisions. That has led to the police detention period and the bail period being capped at a total of 96 hours. That decision has been upheld in the High Court and, as a consequence, we are now having to rush this legislation through today.
	The Opposition have called for temporary legislation or a sunset clause to deal with this, but I think that that is unnecessary on two counts. First, we are a legislative body, and if we eventually find that this legislation is inappropriate, we can come back and amend it through primary legislation at any time. Secondly, this is not new law. It will simply take us back to the status quo.
	There has clearly been some confusion since the new interpretation of the law was confirmed, and I have a number of questions for the Minister. During the period of confusion before the Bill gains Royal Assent, what will be the impact on the 80,000 or so people who are on bail at the moment? Given that bail conditions are designed for the protection of victims, will there be any consequences for victims who need to be protected during this period following the reinterpretation of the law? I also want to ask—not flippantly; it is a serious point—whether the Home Office has scoured the remaining sections of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act, or indeed the Bail Act 1976, to ensure that no other loopholes are likely be discovered by an eagle-eyed magistrate, resulting in our having to do something similar to this in future?
	I very much welcome the Bill, despite the expeditious nature of its passage through the House. It does nothing but change the law on paper, and it will allow the courts to continue to interpret the law in the spirit that the 1984 Act originally intended.

Nick Herbert: The right hon. Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Frank Dobson) began his speech by reminding the House of the impact of 7/7, on this, the anniversary of that atrocity. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary also paid her tribute to the victims of that crime this morning. It is a sobering reminder of the continuing importance of public protection, which is what we are debating today. I am grateful that right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House have supported the need for this emergency legislation. Certain issues have been raised, and I shall try to deal with them briefly now. It is important to note, however, that there was no dissent over the principle behind the legislation. It is widely accepted that there needs to be a correction to the rather extraordinary judgment of the High Court, which overturned 25 years of practice and legal understanding.
	The Government are grateful to all parties for the support expressed, particularly the official Opposition for their support in enabling this emergency legislation to go forward, and I am also grateful for the support of Liberal Democrat Members. There is unanimity on the need to deal with this situation as swiftly as possible.
	I begin by clearing up one or two of the more technical issues. My hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) asked a specific question about when the Bill could be expected to receive Royal Assent. Subject
	to the Bill being approved by both Houses, we aim to secure Royal Assent before the other place rises on Tuesday 12 July. The legal change will then come into effect immediately. I hope that that answers the point.
	For the record, I would like to clear up issues raised by the shadow Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), and by the Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee, the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), about the role of the Law Officers in this matter. Although the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford said—I hope I quote her accurately—that it is common for Ministers to say whether they have had advice from Law Officers, page 447 of “Erskine May” states:
	“By longstanding convention observed by successive Governments, the fact of, and substance of advice from, the law officers of the Crown is not disclosed outside Government”.
	I hope that that helps to clarify the matter.
	It is nevertheless important to reassure the House that the Crown Prosecution Service was involved in discussions with ACPO and officials soon after the written judgment was received. I hope that the Chairman of the Select Committee—he is not in his place at the moment—will be reassured when he reads what I had to say. The CPS has certainly been involved in trying to assess the legal implications at the same time as ACPO was trying to assess the practical implications.

Yvette Cooper: The issue of the involvement of the Attorney-General is important. It is not simply about whether the Government might be prejudicing their case in a trial, which has been the traditional reason why the content of legal advice is not disclosed; it is about whether the Government did the right thing in response to a very pressing situation. The Minister really needs to confirm whether the Attorney-General intervened in the case in the hearing before the Supreme Court, which the Supreme Court gave him the opportunity to do. Did he do that earlier this week or not? Given that, according to Lord Goldsmith in his evidence to the Constitutional Affairs Committee, the Attorney-General has the power to bring or intervene in other legal proceedings in the public interest, did the Attorney-General consider whether he could intervene in the public interest by a request for a stay of judgment?

Nick Herbert: The right hon. Lady continues to seek to make what appears to me to be political hay out of this situation when the Government are doing everything they can to redress it. I noted yesterday that she made the absurd suggestion that somehow there had been a delay regarding the Supreme Court’s refusal to grant a stay of execution, which might have explained why it refused the stay. On her own analysis, the Supreme Court would have granted a stay of execution—or might have done so—when the implications of this judgment were not clear, yet for some reason it decided not to grant the stay of execution when the implications were made clear. The right hon. Lady takes a whole set of completely inconsistent positions simply because she wants to make political points that are inappropriate when we are seeking to address a serious political matter.
	Let me return to the impact on the police and to specific questions—

Yvette Cooper: rose—

Nick Herbert: I want to make some progress, if the right hon. Lady will forgive me, as I have only five minutes left.
	Specific questions were raised by my hon. Friends the Members for Oxford West and Abingdon (Nicola Blackwood) and for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood). The police have assured us that they are doing all they can to ensure that public safety is not compromised, and are taking interim steps to manage the situation in its current form given the current state of the law as expressed by the High Court. However, they are anxious for the law to be restated in the future.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Oxford West and Abingdon rightly raised the issue of the protection of victims and witnesses, which is at the centre of our approach. The police service shares our concern about the issue. The chief constable of Essex, Jim Barker-McCardle, has written to all chief police officers repeating his assurance that the service remains completely focused on doing all it can to protect the public, who, of course, include victims and witnesses.
	Three substantive issues were raised by Members in all parts of the House. First, it was asked whether we should take the opportunity provided by the Bill to engage in what the shadow Home Secretary called a wider debate about, for instance, whether time limits on the use of police bail would be necessary. The right hon. Member for Holborn and St Pancras raised the issue of protracted bail periods, and my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Gareth Johnson) said that we should not give the green light to the keeping of suspects on bail, by which I assume he meant inappropriately.
	My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary responded on that issue, but let me add that I do not think it appropriate to amend emergency legislation that seeks simply to restore the status quo ante by introducing limits on the use of police bail that have not applied for 25 years without proper consideration. As I said last Thursday, as far as I am aware no representations have been made to the Government about the inadequacy of police bail. Although in recent days some have suggested that it has been a cause of growing concern, I believe that they should set out that concern in a proper manner and on the basis of evidence. We need to have a proper debate about the issue, and were the Government to conclude that changes were needed, there would have to be proper consultation. Such provisions cannot be introduced in the emergency legislation.
	It appears to me that opportunities are being taken to make statements that are not necessarily correct. For example, I noticed that the press release that accompanied this morning’s call by members of the legal profession for a delay in the legislation included the following statement by a spokesman from Mary Monson Solicitors, a firm that was involved in the original case:
	“The legislation is being rushed through now without proper debate to widen police powers”.
	It does not “widen police powers”; it restores to the police powers that they have had for 25 years. That is a serious misrepresentation of what the Bill seeks to do.

Frank Dobson: rose—

Nick Herbert: I will give way to the right hon. Gentleman very briefly.

Frank Dobson: Does the Minister not accept that if we are to have a rational, evidence-based debate about the possible increase in protracted bail periods, it will be necessary for the Home Office actually to collect some data? Otherwise we shall all be just talking.

Nick Herbert: I am all in favour of evidence-based policy, but I think that rather than its merely being asserted that there is a problem, such a problem, if it exists, must be properly presented and, of course, backed up with data.
	Secondly, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe) suggested that the Bill should include a sunset clause. The Government disagree. A sunset clause would create further uncertainty, which is exactly what the police do not want. We do not want it either. This is a straightforward piece of legislation that restores the previous position. We also believe that the retrospective action that is being taken is necessary, because if it were not taken, hundreds of thousands of people would potentially have a claim for false imprisonment at any time over the past six years, which is the limitation period. Liberty has said:
	“We do not believe that the proposals are retrospective in their nature as they do not seek retrospectively to create a criminal offence, sanction or other burden.”
	This is a sensible piece of legislation which was designed to correct an unusual judgment and restore 25 years of legal practice, and I commend it to the House.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Bill accordingly read a Second time ; to stand committed to a Committee of the whole House (Order, this day).

Ivan Lewis: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. As Members will be aware, News Corporation’s proposed acquisition of BSkyB is now a matter of great public importance and interest. Rumours are circulating, and briefings are coming from the Department for Culture, Media and Sport that the Secretary of State intends to delay his decision for a minimum of three months. On an issue of such importance, and on the day when we hear that the phones of the families of brave men and women who died fighting for this country in Iraq and Afghanistan were hacked, the least the Secretary of State should do is come to the House as a matter of urgency this afternoon and make a statement.

Nigel Evans: As you know, Mr Lewis, it is not up to the Chair to demand that Ministers come to the House to make statements. It is very much up to Ministers to make that decision for themselves. Mr Speaker allowed an emergency debate yesterday on the phone hacking issue. I agree that it is a fast-moving and significant issue, but I have not been notified that any Minister intends to come to the House to make a statement today. If that changes however, the House will be told immediately in the usual way.

Police (Detention and Bail) Bill

Considered in Committee

[Mr Nigel Evans in the Chair.]

Clause 1
	 — 
	Amendment of Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Nigel Evans: I call Mr Coaker.

Vernon Coaker: Perhaps I should explain to Members who were wondering why I was not standing up to speak that I was trying to give others a chance to make a contribution. Some of what I say may appear to repeat aspects of the debate we have already had, and although I do not mind being subjected to barracking, I hope I will not be subjected to barracking over and above what one might normally expect.
	As we have now moved into Committee, let me go into a little more detail. To be fair to the Minister, a few moments ago he could have done with a little more time to address some of the measures he is trying to rush through. Clause 1 is essentially the Bill, so it is almost as if we are repeating Second Reading, but let me say again from the outset that we support the provisions in clause 1. We absolutely agree that we need to fast-track the Bill, and the reasons for that are well set out in the explanatory memorandum.
	Earlier, the shadow Home Secretary was trying to elicit from the Government answers to two key questions on fast-tracking and the legal advice and preparation—or lack of it—that the Home Office made in introducing the Bill. First, our understanding is that the Attorney-General was asked by the Supreme Court to intervene in the public interest in the application for a stay of judgment. Did the Attorney-General intervene and support the Government? Was he involved in seeking that stay of judgment in the Supreme Court? As I say, we support the fast-tracking of the Bill, but secondly, will the Minister tell us when the Home Office commissioned officials to draw up draft legislation? It would be of interest to us all to know when that advice was commissioned, so that we could have greater clarity about the Bill and the speed with which the Home Office acted. Our view is that it did not act as quickly as it might or should have done.
	We do not, in any way, underestimate the importance of and need for speed in this matter, as 80,000 individuals are currently on police bail. If hon. Members have not had the opportunity to look at the submission from The Trade Union and Professional Association for Family Court and Probation Staff—NAPO—I urge them to examine it. That body has put together some case studies that illustrate some of the difficulties that have arisen as a result of the judgments. I shall just discuss one of its examples, which relates to a 24-year-old man arrested on suspicion of an alcohol-fuelled assault and affray. He was held in cells overnight to sober up, and it is believed that that counts towards the 96 hours. His interview was then delayed for a further two hours to
	wait for the duty solicitor. He was then bailed on condition that he avoided the victim and the pub, and the police are now collecting witness statements and forensic analysis from the site. Five days have already passed since the incident, and so the bail conditions will fall. NAPO’s submission contains other examples, which are set out for the Committee. Those case studies are extremely important and they show why the Government have introduced this fast-track Bill.
	In the previous debate the Minister started to respond to some of the questions posed by hon. Members from both sides of the House. If we examine what Liberty, Justice and many hon. Members have said about the Bill, we find that everyone accepts the need for it to be fast-tracked. However, we need to consider what my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe) was saying, as it goes to the heart of the matter. As he set out, the Bill contains no sunset clause and, irrespective of whether or not that is the right way to proceed, that does not mean that the Government should not consider some of the issues that people have raised. The fact that everyone accepts the need for it to be fast-tracked does not mean that we should not address the issues relating to time limits for how long somebody can and should be able to remain on police bail, and those concerning some of the conditions that are attached to bail.
	I believe that the Minister said earlier that the system had been operating for 25 years without anybody raising such issues and so there was not previously a problem. I do not mean to misquote him, and apologise if I am doing so, but the fact—or not—that these issues have not been raised before does not mean that the Government should not consider examining those that have arisen as a consequence of the judgment. There needs to be a debate. Given that the Bill contains no sunset clause, will the Minister say whether he feels that there is a need for a debate about time limits and the application of conditions in police bail, just to see whether any change to the guidance should be made? They may well be no need as a result of that debate to make such a change, but all this throws up an opportunity for us to discuss with the police and others whether any change is needed.

Stephen McCabe: I do not think that I have heard either on Second Reading or during this debate whether someone who decides to leave this country, which at the moment they are perfectly entitled to do, will be subject as of 12 July to the retrospective conditions. Presumably it would cost quite a lot of money and time to try to bring that person back. Is that the kind of problem about which my hon. Friend is concerned? There is a category of people who would be perfectly at liberty to leave the country now because no controls apply to them, but whom we would want to contact and bring back because they are engaged in potentially quite serious offences.

Vernon Coaker: That might well be one example of concern to us all. Whether we use that example or others—the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) cited examples of police bail having gone on and on—we need to consider any constraints or restraints or whether the system works so well that we do not need to worry about it. I would be interested to hear whether the Minister thinks that it is time to discuss that and to see what the evidence tells us, or that we should just carry on.
	The hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington—it might have been the hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert)—mentioned the use of police bail. Do we need to consider that? Is it totally appropriate? Are we sure that it works in the way that we would want in all circumstances?
	One of the things about a fast-tracked Bill is that the information that comes to us is fast-tracked, too. Some Members were sent just this morning, when it was published, the report on police detention and bail by the House of Lords Select Committee on the Constitution. I do not know whether all Members have managed to see it. Although the Committee does not oppose what the Government are doing, it has raised one or two questions. It wonders whether, because the Bill is being fast-tracked with limited opportunity for amendment, the Government will need to return to consider some of the matters that might otherwise have been debated. It is important to consider the detail now we are in Committee, and the Constitution Committee raises the constitutional issue of the fact that Parliament is legislating before the Supreme Court has made a judgment. The Constitution Committee does not necessarily say that there is anything wrong with that, but states:
	“We are concerned that asking Parliament to legislate in these highly unusual circumstances raises difficult issues of constitutional principle as regards both the separation of powers and the rule of law. We have noted the constitutionally important distinction between legislative and adjudicative functions before. We are concerned that, in the understandable”—
	note the word “understandable”—
	“rush to rectify a problem which the police have identified as being serious and urgent, insufficient time has been allowed for Parliament fully to consider the constitutional implications of what it is being asked to do.”
	The Committee says that it will return to the matter later in the year to consider what
	“the effect of Parliament legislating in advance of the Supreme Court hearing may be on the Court when it hears the case on 25 July.”
	Can the Minister tell the Committee the Government’s view? I appreciate that the Government might have seen the report only relatively recently and I am unsure whether the Minister will have had time fully to consider it. If the Minister has not had time to do that, he might need to ensure that there is a full discussion and debate in the other place.
	The Minister has dealt with the issue of retrospection. I think that all hon. Members are concerned about retrospective legislation, and that concern is understandable in this regard. Will the Minister confirm that the Bill will apply only to cases after 19 May—I think he said that it restores the law to what it was before the judgment—or will it impact on anything that happened before that judgment? We should be sure that we understand the extent to which the Bill will act retrospectively, so it would help the Committee if the Minister confirmed that point.

Nigel Mills: One of my concerns is that the decision might mean that the rule was ineffective going back 25 years and that a collection of people who believe that they were wrongly treated during that period might bring claims for compensation. There is some
	detail about that in the explanatory note and my reading of the clause is that the retrospective effect rules out any such potential issue. Does the hon. Gentleman agree with that and welcome it?

Vernon Coaker: I think so, but we are in Committee and I would need the detail in order to understand what legal advice the Government have had about retrospective effect before I could properly answer the hon. Gentleman. I thought that either the Minister or the Home Secretary had said that all this will apply only as far back as 19 May, when the initial judgment was made. I seek to clarify whether it is possible to apply such provision to cases from the past 25 years. There will be a legal opinion on that and I suppose it will be either one thing or the other.
	I have only a few brief points to make, because of course we all agree with the Bill. Clearly, we all want the Bill to become law as soon as possible and certainly before Parliament goes into recess. In answer to the very important question about Royal Assent, the Minister said that the Government aim for the Bill to become law on completion of its passage through the House of Lords, which is on Tuesday. Will he confirm that what he actually means is that Royal Assent will be given at the end of that day? Are the Government aiming for that, or will it definitely be given then? We all want absolute and firm assurance on that, because every Member of the House supports the Bill and will want to know, 100%, that Royal Assent will definitely be in place before the House rises for the summer recess. Of course, that is assuming that the Bill is passed by both Houses.
	With those few brief comments and detailed points I will sit down and wait for the Minister’s response or to hear what other Members have to say.

Nigel Mills: It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Evans. I should like simply to expand a little further on the point I made in my intervention on the hon. Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker) about the potential for retrospective effect. We have seen, in relation to other issues earlier this year, how concerned the public are about any possibility of compensation being paid to people who are guilty of offences and are, perhaps, now being denied their right to vote. I expect the public would be incredibly concerned if people who have been through what was thought to be due legal process now had some chance of compensation, no matter how little, because that process, despite having been believed by everyone to be right, might have been ruled technically out of order by one judge in a verdict with which no one seems to agree. I accept the fact that, as is made clear in the explanatory notes, making the Bill’s provisions retrospective, right back to 1984, is an attempt to address that.
	My concern is that to some extent we are in this mess because Parliament was not clear enough about its intentions when it passed the 1984 Act. It would be helpful if Parliament was entirely clear about what we mean when we give retrospective effect and if the Minister made explicit the intention, as set out in the explanatory notes, that these powers will be restored to what we all understood them to be for 25 years so that the courts will not allow any compensation claims. The explanatory notes are clear that that is what the Bill is attempting to do.
	To try to clarify the point that the hon. Member for Gedling made, if he looks at page 9 of the explanatory notes, he will see that paragraph 36(c) states:
	“Unless the Bill is given retrospective effect, it is possible that a very large number of people could bring claims for damages for detention occurring before the judgment, even though that detention was in accordance with what was honestly thought to be a long-understood legal position.”
	There could be a huge number of claims and a large amount of money at stake, and it would be very generous to think that some claims-handling firms would not go around trying to find people to make those claims and test the process.
	I want to ask the Minister two questions. First, will he make it absolutely clear that the Government’s view, and Parliament’s intention, is that no compensation would be due? Secondly, will he address the point about whether it would be wise to add a separate subsection to the Bill that makes that absolutely explicit so that if and when such claims are brought there is no doubt that our intention is that no compensation should be due?

Nick Herbert: The hon. Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker) and my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills) have raised a number of concerns that I will try to answer, but first I wish to return to the Opposition’s general allegation about delay. It is simply not the view of senior police officers that there has been inappropriate delay in the matter. The Opposition are claiming something that does not have the support of those most affected by the judgment’s implications.
	I attended the ACPO conference in Harrogate this week, which the hon. Gentleman joined for the last day, and talked with the chief constable of Greater Manchester police, the force originally affected. He said that at the time of the oral judgment his force could not believe that a single judgment in Salford could affect all the cases across the country and overturn something that had been operating since 1986. The police force affected did not appreciate at that stage the potential wider implications of the court’s decision. The High Court judge, Mr Justice McCombe, said that the consequences would not be
	“as severe as might be feared”,
	a view with which the shadow Home Secretary disagrees. As I noted earlier, the ACPO lead on the issue, the chief constable of Essex police, Jim Barker-McCardle, has said:
	“It was only when ACPO received the written judgment on 17 June…that the seriousness of the issue became apparent.”
	The chief constable of the force concerned did not appreciate the wider implications, the High Court judge said that the consequences were not severe and the ACPO lead said that their seriousness was not appreciated until 17 June, and yet the Opposition appear to know differently and apparently, with astonishing clairvoyance, saw the need for action in May. Neither the police, nor the High Court judge saw the need for action, but the Opposition apparently did. This simply is not a credible position for the Opposition to take. I repeat that the Government acted as fast as we could. In particular, once we received formal advice from ACPO that it believed that emergency legislation was necessary, we acted very fast indeed.
	I say to the hon. Member for Gedling—this is an important point—that the Opposition could take a different approach. He may remember that, in 2008, when the Supreme Court ruled on witness anonymity and against the common law understanding of the issue, the then Government decided to introduce emergency legislation and we supported them. I know that we did so because I led for the then Opposition. I did not claim that the Government of the day had in any way delayed, yet that emergency legislation was introduced to almost exactly the same timetable as this legislation after the written judgment had been received. We also hope that this legislation will be on the statute books sooner than that one was, so there is no need to strike such a partisan stance on the matter, given the cross-party agreement that it is necessary to do something. I am sorry that, when we need to consider the substance of the issue, the Opposition have continued to make political points, but I hope that deals with the issue of delay.
	The hon. Gentleman also asked whether the Government felt there should be a debate about time limits. My point on Second Reading was that, if there are believed to be problems with the operation of police bail, and if the suggestion is that bail is being extended for too long a period or over-used, those who believe that to be the case should assemble their evidence and present a serious case, at which point I am sure that hon. Members on both sides will debate and consider it carefully.
	Such points were made, it seems to the Government, at a very late stage and only when the High Court judgment came in, so we do not think it appropriate to amend the emergency legislation. That does not preclude sensible debate about the matter in future, but I gently point out to the hon. Gentleman that the Opposition did not raise them before that point, either. The House did not appear to be aware of a concern—if, indeed, there is widespread concern, and I do not presume that there is—about the operation of police bail.
	The Government certainly do not have a closed mind to the issue, and of course we should pay the closest attention to a proper case, should one be made to us, but we will not arbitrarily and in a rushed manner set limits on the operation of police bail without proper evidence, proper understanding of the problem, proper consultation and proper consideration of the impact of such limits. That is a responsible position to take.
	The hon. Gentleman asked also about the Government’s response to the Lords Constitution Committee report, which he correctly said we received just this morning, and in particular our response to its conclusion that there is an issue of constitutional principle regarding the separation of powers and the rule of law, because Parliament is introducing emergency legislation when an appeal is pending to the Supreme Court.
	The Government do not see that the decision to legislate in advance of an outcome to that appeal raises any constitutional issues. The sovereignty of Parliament means that it is entirely open to Parliament to legislate at any time in response to a court judgment, and that is what we are doing.
	The hon. Gentleman also raised the important issue of retrospection, about which my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills) was also concerned in relation to compensation claims. The hon. Member for Gedling wanted in particular to know whether the retrospective nature of the Bill meant it went back only
	to the original judgment on 19 May. That is not the case, because the High Court judgment itself applied to all cases going back to 1986. The Court, owing to its different understanding of the Bail Act, stated that any cases prior to 1986 may have involved unlawful detention, so this legislation must go all the way back as well. That is why if hon. Members read clause 1(3) they will see the following wording:
	“The amendments made by subsections (1) and (2) are deemed always to have had effect.”
	That is particularly important because we need to create legal certainty. As I said on Second Reading, it is important that we do not permit what might otherwise be the bringing of a rash of legal cases.

Vernon Coaker: The Minister is providing helpful clarity in responding to what the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills) and I said. Without having the legal support that the Minister does, it was not immediately obvious to me that that was the case, and I was worried about it. His reply will give a sense of relief to all sane people throughout the country.

Nick Herbert: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s support, although I did it almost all on my own without the legal support that he claims. Nevertheless, that is the effect of the Bill, and that is important because it means that there is no doubt about the matter. Any claim based on what the High Court has said since the May judgment would not succeed because Parliament is stating clearly that the original understanding of the legislation should apply. I am happy to put on record that the Government’s, and I believe Parliament’s, intention is not to allow compensation claims that may have arisen as a consequence of this judgment. It is expressly our desire to prevent such claims, which would be improper and unwarranted in the circumstances.
	The hon. Member for Gedling asked me a specific question about the Home Office’s preparedness for legislation—that is, did we prepare on a contingency basis before ACPO came to us with its formal request on the necessity for emergency legislation? ACPO presented its case to me on the morning of Thursday 30 June, and I made my oral statement less than two hours later. The Home Office had already studied the judgment, considered possible legislative vehicles, and prepared instructions to parliamentary counsel that were sent on the same day in time for a first draft of the legislation to be received later that day. We acted explicitly and swiftly. Of course, the drafting was not complicated because this is a straightforward Bill that simply restores the status quo ante.
	The hon. Gentleman asked whether it was merely our aim that the Bill should receive Royal Assent next Tuesday or whether it would receive Royal Assent next Tuesday. Of course, that is a matter for the other place, but it is very much our hope and expectation that we will have Royal Assent on 19 May once the other place has considered the Bill. [ Interruption. ] I am sorry—I should have said 19 July. There is always a danger in reading things without my glasses. As I have said, the Bill will take effect once Royal Assent is received. I hope that that answers the hon. Gentleman’s specific questions.

Vernon Coaker: This is a hugely important issue not only for the police but for the confidence of the public in ensuring that we are doing as much as we can, as swiftly as we can, to protect them from the people they need protecting from. Notwithstanding our difference about the delay, it was helpful for the Minister to clarify some of those specific points, and I thank him for that.

Nick Herbert: For the record, may I correct what I said about when the Bill will receive Royal Assent? I should have said 12 July, not 19 July. That was written in larger writing, but I could not see it.

Vernon Coaker: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is the Minister absolutely certain that he has got it right this time?

Dawn Primarolo: I believe that the Minister is absolutely certain. I am going to put on my glasses to ensure that I get things right.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
	Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
	The Deputy Speaker resumed the Chair.
	Bill reported, without amendment.
	Third reading

Nick Herbert: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
	I do not need to detain the House, because there is broad agreement about the importance of this legislation and the substance of it. I hope that I have answered the questions that have been raised during the Bill’s passage. There will, of course, be a further opportunity to consider any issues when the other place debates the Bill on Tuesday. I hope that the fact that questions have been raised by hon. Members on both sides of the House indicates that there has been proper scrutiny of the Bill. It is a short Bill, but important questions were nevertheless raised about it. The Government are grateful for the support of the official Opposition and hon. Members on both sides of the House for this important legislation, which will simply restore 25 years of previously understood legal and police practice, and enable the police to do their job. I commend the Bill to the House.

Vernon Coaker: The official Opposition are pleased that the Bill has progressed swiftly through the House. It is a very small Bill, but it is none the less very important. Important points have been raised, and the Minister sought to address them. No doubt that will inform the debate in the other place. Whatever the rights and wrongs of the judicial system, the vast majority of people in this country will have had an “I can’t believe it!” moment in relation to this matter. When the House has passed the legislation, it will help to give the police the clarity that they need with respect to the law, so that they can deal with some difficult cases and individuals in the proper and professional way in which they carry out their business. I hope that this unsatisfactory situation will be resolved as swiftly as possible.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

Business without Debate
	 — 
	delegated legislation

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Legal Services

That the draft Legal Services Act 2007 (Appeals from Licensing Authority Decisions) Order 2011, which was laid before this House on 17 May, be approved.—(Mr Vara.)
	Question agreed to.
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),
	That the draft Legal Services Act 2007 (The Law Society and The Council for Licensed Conveyancers) (Modification of Functions) Order 2011, which was laid before this House on 17 May, be approved.—(Mr Vara.)
	Question agreed to.
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Constitutional Law

That the draft Criminal Procedure (Legal Assistance, Detention and Appeals) (Scotland) Act 2010 (Consequential Provisions) Order 2011, which was laid before this House on 9 June, be approved. —(Mr Vara.)
	Question agreed to.
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),
	That the draft Adoption and Children (Scotland) Act 2007 (Consequential Modifications) Order 2011, which was laid before this House on 10 June, be approved. —(Mr Vara.)
	Question agreed to.

Committee on Members’ Allowances

Dawn Primarolo: With the agreement of the House, we will take motions 9 and 10 together.
	I must tell the House that Mr Speaker has selected amendments (c) and (d) to motion 9 and amendment (b) to motion 10. The debate will therefore be on the two motions and the three selected amendments. If amendment (c) to motion 9 is not agreed to, I will allow amendment (b) to motion 10 to be moved in a slightly amended form, to reflect the decision of the House on the name of the Committee. I will, of course, ensure that the House is fully aware of which amendment we are voting on as we progress. In due course I will call Mr Afriyie to move the first of his amendments, but we begin with the Minister.

David Heath: I beg to move,
	That Standing Order No. 152G (Committee on Members’ Allowances) shall be amended as follows—
	(1) in line 2, leave out ‘Allowances’ and insert ‘Expenses’; and
	(2) leave out lines 3 to 17 and insert ‘to consider such matters relating to Members’ expenses as may be referred to it by the House;’.

Dawn Primarolo: With this we shall discuss the following motion, on the review of the Parliamentary Standards Act 2009:
	That, further to the instruction to the Committee on Members’ Allowances of 12 May, it be an instruction to the Committee on Members’ Expenses to report to the House on the review of the Parliamentary Standards Act 2009 by 31 December 2011.

David Heath: The motions would amend the terms of reference of the Committee on Members’ Allowances, in advance of its review of the operation of the Parliamentary Standards Act 2009. Earlier, Madam Deputy Speaker, you may have heard my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House say in business questions that he would find it very difficult to find additional time to debate the matter before the recess, but by happenstance we now have adequate time to do the job today. I am extremely pleased that that is the case.
	On 12 May, the House gave an instruction to the Committee on Members’ Allowances to review the 2009 Act,
	“giving due consideration to ensuring:
	(a) value for money for taxpayers;
	(b) accountability;
	(c) public confidence in Parliament;
	(d) the ability of Members to fulfil their duties effectively;
	(e) fairness for less well-off Members and those with families; and
	(f) that Members are not deterred from submitting legitimate claims.”
	The debate was initiated through the Backbench Business Committee by the hon. Member for Windsor (Adam Afriyie), who I am pleased to see in his place. Following a good debate, the House agreed to the instruction without a Division.
	Since May, the Government have been in discussion with colleagues in the House on changes to the terms of reference of the Committee on Members’ Allowances, given its change in remit. I express my gratitude to my long-suffering right hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Mr Randall) for his efforts in seeking consensus on a sensible approach.
	One of the Government’s proposals following consultation was that the Chair be removed from the list of Select Committee Chairs receiving an additional salary, which was approved by the House on Tuesday 5 July. There are two outstanding motions that have previously been objected to and remain to be approved. Motion 9 would amend the Standing Order relating to the Committee by changing its name to the Committee on Members’ Expenses. That terminology reflects the fact that the current scheme, operated by the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority, is an expenses-based system, not an allowances-based one.

Adam Afriyie: I echo the Deputy Leader of the House’s thanks to my right hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Mr Randall) for his help in ensuring that we bring this matter to a swift resolution.
	The instruction issued to the Committee on 12 May was that it review the 2009 Act, which does not relate directly to expenses. My concern is that calling it an expenses Committee and limiting its remit would in some way prevent it from doing its work of reviewing the 2009 Act. If the Deputy Leader of the House can confirm that the change will in no way narrow the Committee’s ability to do its work of reviewing the Act and producing recommendations, there will be very little to detain us.

David Heath: I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. Let me make it absolutely clear to the House that the change in wording in no way restricts the ability of the Committee to consider the issue of allowances as it relates to the review of the operation of the Act. The Committee will be free to consider the issue of allowances and to make recommendations as it sees fit. The Government have no intention of seeking to restrict the Committee’s remit in the way that is feared.

Edward Leigh: rose—

David Heath: I will give way in a moment, but let me just say again that the change merely brings the Committee’s title up to date, reflecting the new system that is in operation at the moment.

Edward Leigh: I am grateful for what my hon. Friend has said. Of course, I have no idea what the Committee will decide, but for instance—for the sake of argument—if it were to recommend that the current expense-based system on living away should be replaced by a flat-rate allowance, would that be perfectly in order?

David Heath: It would be in order for the Committee to consider any matter that it sees fit in reviewing the legislation as it is currently worded, so I think the answer to the hon. Gentleman is yes.

Edward Leigh: And can it make any recommendations as well?

David Heath: Indeed, it can make any recommendations based on the considerations into which it has entered. It would be a very odd restriction on a Committee if it were to be told that it cannot make recommendations when it has considered a matter. Of course, such recommendations would be the end result if the Committee so chooses.
	Motion 9 also brings the Committee’s terms of reference up to date. The Committee has a number of specific functions, set out in Standing Order No. 152G(1)(a) to (d), in relation to the old allowances regime that was administered by the House until the election last year. They include, for example, approving practice notes for the now-defunct fees office. Clearly, those specific powers are no longer relevant—they are, in effect, spent—and the motion provides the House with an opportunity to replace them with a more general power to consider any matter related to Members’ expenses that the House might choose to refer to it.
	I sense from the interventions from the hon. Members for Windsor and for Gainsborough (Mr Leigh) that they have received some reassurance from what I have said.

Richard Bacon: rose—

David Heath: I hope that my hon. Friend is reassured as well, but I will allow him to say.

Richard Bacon: I hope that the Deputy Leader of the House can reassure me. He said that the motion brings the Standing Order up to date because the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority is operating an expenses-based scheme, not an allowances scheme. I have looked at the Parliamentary Standards Act 2009. It mentions the word “allowance” or “allowances” 37 times. Therefore, the authority under which IPSA operates—the Act—provides for allowances. It does not provide any authority to operate an expenses scheme. Can he clarify that for me?

David Heath: I can simply make it clear that IPSA does what it believes to be in line with the Act. The Committee will be free to consider those matters and to bring forward recommendations as it sees fit. I do not think that I can be more open than simply saying that no restriction is applied by the terms of the motions.

Richard Bacon: I am grateful to the Deputy Leader of the House for being as open as he thinks he can be, but I am still not quite clear. The 2009 Act could not be clearer. The words “expense” or “expenses” are not mentioned anywhere—I just searched a PDF copy of the Act and found that those words are mentioned nowhere in it—but the words “allowance” or “allowances” are mentioned 37 times. How can it be that IPSA operates a scheme that it thinks is in line with the Act if it ignores the terms of the Act? That is what I simply do not understand.

David Heath: It is probably not helpful for me to rehearse the subject matter of considerations that will clearly take place in the Committee. I do not speak for IPSA, but it has made it very clear that the current system is
	one of expenses, whereby Members are reimbursed for costs that they can prove they have incurred. The previous, discredited scheme was one of allowances, whereby Members were allowed to claim, in many cases, with no proof of actual expenditure. I repeat that changing the title of the Committee would not prevent it from proposing that IPSA should introduce a new system that includes an element of allowances, but it would be better if the Committee’s title actually reflected the scheme that is in operation rather than one that is not in operation.

Adam Afriyie: From the reassurance the Deputy Leader of the House has given, I am satisfied that the remit of the Committee and the review will not be restricted, and we can look at everything and come to a calm, considered conclusion. My final question is on the timing of the formation of the Committee, given that we have had a 49-hour stutter in the proceedings.

David Heath: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for what I take to be an indication that he will not press his amendment. That is good, because it means that everyone has the same understanding of what we are doing. In terms of timing, I know that the Leader of the House is champing at the bit to take the necessary steps to allow the Committee of Selection to establish the Committee. Indeed, I think it would probably have already been done had it not been for the delays—albeit quite proper delays—occasioned by the objections and amendments that have been tabled. If we can dispose of this business today, I have every confidence that the Committee will be up and running at a very early date. We will then be in business, which is what the hon. Gentleman wants.

Adam Afriyie: I appreciate that one can never predict the future, but can the Deputy Leader of the House say whether he expects that the Committee will be formed this side of the recess?

David Heath: I think that we can do even better than that. I shall make no further prognostication, but it will certainly be this side of the recess.

Adam Afriyie: Then I can say on my own behalf, and possibly on behalf of others, that I will not press my amendments. I thank the Deputy Leader of the House for his assurance and I thank the Leader of the House for the calm and considered way in which he has approached the issue.

David Heath: I am extremely grateful and I hope that, subject of course to the will of the House in approving the recommendation by the Committee of Selection in due course, we will be able to make quick progress.
	Motion 10 asks the Committee to report back to the House on the issue tasked to it by 31 December 2011. That date allows the views of the Committee to be considered to a time scale that fits in with the next annual review of the expenses scheme by IPSA, which is expected early next year. A delay in reporting risks the ability of IPSA to consider, consult on and implement in an orderly way any changes that may be proposed. I gather that we may not now have a Division on the
	amendment, which I am very pleased about. Otherwise, we might have a delay that would obstruct the work of the Committee.
	The House agreed on 12 May that a review of the operation of the Parliamentary Standards Act 2009 should take place. The Government are keen that the Committee is set up without any more unnecessary delay and gets on with the important work that the House has tasked it with, and I commend the motions to the House.

Helen Jones: The Opposition welcome the fact that these motions are being debated today, and welcome even more that the House appears to be moving towards some consensus. It is of course a matter for Back Benchers to decide, but it is important that we get this Committee set up and running as soon as possible, because the scheme clearly needs amendment.
	I see the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr Leigh) in his place. Like me, he sits on the liaison committee with IPSA and we spend a lot of time trying to iron out problems in the scheme. It is imperative therefore that we reach a sensible position that both maintains public confidence in the scheme and does not use up too much of the time of hon. Members, who are fast becoming the highest paid data input clerks in the country.
	Anyone who has read the National Audit Office report published today—I have had the time to read only some of it—will be clear that much work needs to be done on the scheme. The NAO quantifies the amount of time it is taking for Members and their staff, and actually puts a monetary value on that. It also comments on the repetitive nature of much of the information that is required. We clearly need to have a transparent expenses system. I do not think that anyone in the House would suggest anything else. However, we need to have one that facilitates the work of hon. Members and does not get in the way of our much more important work of representing our constituents. I am grateful to hon. Members involved for their work in setting up the Committee, which I hope can play a major role in ensuring that the scheme we have works properly and in the best interests of our constituents and the House. I look forward to the Committee being set up and being able to get on with its work as soon as possible.

Christopher Chope: I apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker, for not having been here at the outset, but I was chairing Westminster Hall and it was not possible to get a substitute as quickly as I had hoped.
	I hear from my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor (Adam Afriyie) that much progress has been made during this short debate. I am certainly pleased to hear that. There is a lesson here: if the Government table motions on the Order Paper that are inconsistent with a resolution of the House agreed to as a result of a Back-Bench debate and do not discuss their reasons for tabling the motion, it creates a climate of suspicion. That climate of suspicion was confirmed yesterday, when the Committee of Selection was set up to confirm the membership of the Committee on Members’ Allowances but at the last minute did not deal with the business at
	hand. I understand that it has been confirmed during this debate that there will be a special meeting today of the Committee of Selection to set up the Committee so that the latter can organise itself to meet next week. I do not know whether that interpretation is correct, but I understand that that is what has been agreed.
	Why did we have to go through all this? It is regrettable that this adversarial attitude has been created over an issue that everybody on both sides of the House takes very seriously—IPSA’s administration of our allowances system. Yesterday, I went on to the IPSA website to make a claim for the past month—it was my first claim for a month—and I found that four previous items that I claimed for had been sent back. I will not go into the details except to say that after more than an hour on the telephone all those matters were resolved. However, it should never have taken so long. It was a matter of process dominating common sense and reality. The person from IPSA wasted more than an hour on the telephone. I had to waste more than an hour on the telephone. There were lots of delays and as a result one member of my staff was not paid as quickly as they should have been. That is why it is important that this Committee is set up with the terms of reference that we are debating this afternoon.

Edward Leigh: My hon. Friend can be reassured because we have had a categorical reassurance from the Deputy Leader of the House that there will be absolutely no restriction on what the Committee can decide or recommend. I have the greatest faith in our Front-Bench team—as far as I am concerned, their word is their bond.

Christopher Chope: I am sure that my hon. Friend is right. I hope that when the Committee of Selection meets, he will be selected as a member of the Committee, with my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor as its Chairman. With those two on the Committee, I have little doubt that it can do some effective work. However, I still do not understand why it has taken so long to set it up. It was resolved on 12 May that it should be set up, but it is now almost 12 July.
	I see that quite a few members of the Treasury Bench are in their places. I hope that they will learn a lesson from this—that we should be much more open with each other about these issues instead of creating or facilitating a climate of suspicion. It is possibly only because today’s business collapsed more than two hours early that we have had the chance to have this open and frank discussion on the Floor of the House on this important issue. When the report—or reports—come back from the Committee, I hope that the Government will again be open and frank, and allow us to ensure that the recommendations are debated and carried into action. That way, there will be no need to spend even more parliamentary time trying to get the Government to do what was agreed by the Prime Minister as long ago as before last December, as I recall, when he made it clear that if something did not happen by April, he would ensure that pressure would be put on IPSA to get its act together.
	All’s well that ends well—I hope. In that respect, I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor for briefing me on what transpired earlier in the debate. I hope that it will be confirmed in the response to this
	debate that the members of the Committee will be appointed by the Committee of Selection today, so that they can get down to their work first thing next week.

Richard Bacon: I shall be very brief. I am delighted by the Government’s reassurances, although I share the disappointment that it has taken since the resolution was passed in May to get to the point of setting up the Committee. If something had been decided that our constituents expected would happen, but then six or seven weeks later it had still not happened, we as Members would be advocating hard on their behalf. I am therefore glad that the decision has finally been made.
	I want to make one point about the National Audit Office report that was published this morning, to which the hon. Member for Warrington North (Helen Jones) referred. I have had a look at it, and I think that it looks fairly reasonable. I know that one or two Members who have looked at it are slightly disappointed that it does not appear to tear IPSA limb from limb. However, given what had taken place—the MPs’ expenses crisis and the response that came forth with the new legislation—IPSA has done its best. We know that there is still further to go, and my hon. Friend the Deputy Leader of the House drew attention to the terms of reference—the need for improved public confidence, better accountability and better value for money, and not deterring legitimate claims. We all know that legitimate claims have been deterred, that we need to get value for money and that there is still some work to do, so I am delighted that the Committee can now proceed with its work.

David Heath: I am most grateful to colleagues who have participated in this brief debate. I do not think that any of us seek to minimise the difficulties that have on occasion arisen over the last year in the operation of IPSA. As we all know, there are numerous bodies trying to iron out the problems and produce a more user-friendly, but at the same time rigorous approach to the whole subject. The Committee that we are setting up—that the House has asked to be set up—will go a long way towards dealing with the more fundamental review of the legislation, to ensure that it is fit for purpose, and coming up with recommendations.
	I have to say to the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) that if he had doubts about the wording of the Government motions, we would all have been delighted to discuss his concerns with him and allay any fears. As I mentioned earlier, the right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Mr Randall) has spent quite some time discussing with interested Members the implications of the Government amendments, and to a large extent was able to reassure those who had a fundamental interest in the establishment of the Committee that their fears were groundless and that this was a real attempt to facilitate its setting up.

Christopher Chope: Does the Minister accept that, if those fears had been allayed, my hon. Friends the Members for Windsor (Adam Afriyie) and for Gainsborough (Mr Leigh) would not have had to table the amendments that are being debated today? How is what he has just
	said consistent with the Government’s action yesterday in withdrawing from the business of the Committee of Selection the appointment of the members of this Committee? Finally, may I ask my hon. Friend why the opportunity for a short, five-minute debate was not taken—

Dawn Primarolo: Order. The hon. Gentleman has made his speech. I must also tell him that we are discussing motions 9 and 10 together, and that no amendments have been moved.

David Heath: I am most grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
	It would clearly have been entirely inappropriate for the Committee of Selection to pre-empt the decision of the House, and the House was prevented from taking a decision by the fact that amendments had been tabled that would have been treated as an objection to the order unless we could find time to debate it. Happily, we have had time to do so today, and I hope that I have been helpful to colleagues. I know that the Committee of Selection will be eager to meet at the earliest opportunity in order to make recommendations, which will then have to go before the House, to enable the Committee to be set up. We can now proceed without any further obstruction, should the House agree to the two motions that we have now debated. I hope that we can now do so with expedition.
	Question put and agreed to.

Review of parliamentary Standards act 2009

Ordered,
	That, further to the instruction to the Committee on Members’ Allowances of 12 May, it be an instruction to the Committee on Members’ Expenses to report to the House on the review of the Parliamentary Standards Act 2009 by 31 December 2011.— (Bill Wiggin.)

PETITION
	 — 
	Barnett Formula

Chris Heaton-Harris: This is my first time presenting a petition in this place, and I did not expect to be doing it at this particular hour. I was hoping to do it a tiny bit later, because waiting for me in the Pugin Room are four Daventry councillors who are enjoying their afternoon tea while mine goes cold. However, this is a very important petition.
	In the beautiful village of East Haddon in my constituency, there is a wonderful pub called the Red Lion. The talk of the town in East Haddon is not windmills, although we have plenty of them around the place, and they are the talk of the town in other parts of my constituency; nor is it High Speed 2, although the people who live in the village of Byfield will most certainly be talking about that in the pub. The talk of the town in East Haddon is the Barnett formula. A number of my petitioners, perhaps over a nice cold dry white wine one evening, got very excited about the Barnett formula, and about the fact that English people are being hard done by in regard to a fair and equal per capita distribution of taxpayers’ money across my constituency. They are therefore petitioning the House of Commons. Dr Angus Walker has put this together, and I hope that I can do him justice here today.
	The petition states:
	The Petition of residents of Daventry,
	Declares that the Petitioners believe that the use of the Barnett Formula in the distribution of Government funds should be replaced with an equal per capita distribution for all races in the United Kingdom; notes that the Petitioners believe it to be iniquitous that some parts of the United Kingdom are discriminated against because of race; and further notes that the Petitioners consider that it is wrong to permit such discrimination to be exempted in law.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to discontinue the use of the Barnett Formula in the distribution of Government funds and replace it with an equal per capita distribution for all races in the United Kingdom.
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.
	[P000935]

IAN PUDDICK (INTERNET CRIME)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Bill Wiggin.)

David Burrowes: I do not know whether it is something in the water, but Enfield has recently produced constituents whose cases are of high national importance, which are challenging legislation, international treaties and guidance. I refer, of course, to my constituent Gary McKinnon, to Andrew Symeou in the neighbouring constituency, and to Ian Puddick, the subject of this Adjournment debate.
	I do not wish to entertain the House with the salacious details of this case, which are at times complex and at other times bizarre and, frankly, quite frightening. I wish to explore the principles and practice involved in the case, about which the whole House will no doubt be concerned, as they are fundamental. My primary concern, which again the whole House doubtless shares, is with the principle of equality before the law—the principle that money and wealth should not be used to warp the course of natural justice and that equality should not be eroded in the age of the internet and super-injunctions, which have seen in recent times.
	It is only right for me to start by explaining some of the details of my constituent’s case. In June 2009, Mr Puddick became aware that his wife was having an affair with her employer, who is a board member of a large reinsurance firm. He found on her phone explicit text messages from this man, which then led to his wife’s confession that the affair had been ongoing for some 10 years. In his emotional state, my constituent began calling clients of this large firm, informing them that their manager had used company expenses to fund an affair with another employee. When the manager concerned became aware of this, he hired a private security firm, linked to his organisation, to discredit my constituent and to build a case of harassment against him. Mr Puddick received a phone call from the chief executive of the security firm, who reportedly said, “Our pockets are deep…we will bury you”. How was he buried?
	In August the same year, my constituent’s home, office and his company accountants were raided by 16 officers from the City of London police counter terrorism and major crimes directorate. They removed his personal computers, his mobile phones, laptops, digital cameras and even his personal sat-nav and sent all this equipment to a high-technology crime laboratory for testing.
	My constituent was subsequently arrested and decided not to have a lawyer. He then gave a full and frank confession that he made those phone calls to clients and he apologised for it. He was then charged and stringent police bail conditions were attached. On the first occasion he attended court, the bail conditions were relaxed as it became immediately apparent that my constituent was a man of good character and not likely to commit any act of violence or to make any threats. The court realised that the case needed to be dealt with proportionately.
	I understand from my constituent that, to the surprise of the magistrates, when the officers were asked about the evidence that provided the basis for this case of harassment, it became clear that my constituent’s wife had not even provided a statement. Despite all the
	extreme, disproportionate and expensive investigations that had gone on, which seemed to suggest a major crime, the one witness statement that one would have expected to have been brought forward did not materialise. Any right-minded person listening to the debate—and certainly those listening at the back of the court at which Mr Puddick first came into the public gaze—would have questioned why this was happening.
	A trial was set for April the following year. Before that date the man who had had an affair with Mr Puddick’s wife resigned from his position, and the case was dropped. One might have thought that that would be the end of it, and that there would simply have been complaints to the Police Complaints Authority Independent Police Complaints Commission—as, indeed, there were—which would have been processed in the usual way.
	If the case had ended in that way we would not have ended up discussing it here at 4.15 on a Thursday afternoon, but Mr Puddick was rightly appalled by what had happened, and particularly concerned about the disproportionate actions that he felt had been taken by the police. For reasons of his own, which one may understand and with which one may feel a great deal of sympathy, he set up a blog—www.ianpuddick.com—to which he uploaded a love letter that had been sent to his wife, as well as a video describing the disproportionate response of the police and questioning the actions of the private security firm. Entries to the website www.policeexpenses.com and other similar addresses were redirected to the original blog.
	What then happened, in May 2010, seemed to my constituent to have come out of nowhere. He was arrested again, this time not by local detectives but by the City of London police murder squad. He was told by investigating officers that he could not put that information on the internet. He replied, “I am just putting out information that is true.” The response from the police, which might be considered chilling by anyone concerned about freedom of speech, was, apparently, “Even if it is completely true, you have committed a criminal offence.”
	Mr Puddick was subsequently charged, again, with harassment, but on this occasion on the specific grounds that he had created and distributed three websites which were designed to discredit an individual both professionally and personally. He denied all the allegations, and the case went to the magistrates court in June this year. It was put to the magistrates that Mr Puddick was guilty of harassment through Facebook, Twitter and his websites, and it was partly because of those extra allegations that the case made national headlines. However, it was proved in court through cross-examination at an early stage that there had been no use of Facebook or Twitter.
	I understand that an officer from City of London police offered the explanation that the counter-terrorism and murder squads had been called because of the level of distress that she believed my constituent was causing through his websites. One can only speculate, looking at other websites, on whether such distress constitutes grounds for using the precious and important resources of the counter-terrorism and murder squads. I am glad that the Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice, my right hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert) is present to note my concern in that regard. My constituent was finally found not guilty of the charge of harassment on 17 June this year.
	Having listened to that extraordinary tale, some may believe that it involves a purely operational issue which really belongs on the pages of the tabloids—where it did indeed appear in this instance—rather than in the Chamber. However, as I said at the outset, there is a key point of principle: the principle of equality before the law. As my constituent has stated on numerous occasions, if this could happen to him, it could happen to anyone.
	I want to raise two key points with the Minister. The first is the apparent influence of wealth and authority on the implementation of the law. It seems clear that had it not been for the well-connected private security company and the high profile of the business involved, my constituent would not have experienced such a disproportionate use of force and response. If there is another reason, no one is aware of it. Indeed, it is interesting that the man who had the affair with Mr Puddick’s wife was even advised by police in Sussex—the county where he lives—that this was a civil, not a criminal, matter, and anyone looking at this case would say that that seems to be a very reasonable judgment to make. Despite that, City of London police were approached and the raid in May 2009 followed. My constituent argues that the second raid almost a year later, following the publication of the blog and website, was also based on information that came from the private security firm and outside interests.
	We can go back into history—indeed, all the way back to AD 43, when there was the first recorded mention of equality before the law, by Pericles, and we can then eventually go on to the Magna Carta and other important integral documents in our constitutional law that establish that equality before the law is an important principle. Pericles stated:
	“If we look to the laws, they afford equal justice to all in their private differences…class considerations not being allowed to interfere with merit”.
	Those words and our fundamental principles based on the Magna Carta and established through international law and treaty obligations would seem to be all but forgotten when the 16 counter-terrorism officers from City of London police raided a residential property because, from the point of view of my constituent, who is a mere plumber, that seemed to be in the interests of more powerful and wealthy business interests, which were concerned about the effects on reputation and sought to challenge the concepts of free speech and the truth.
	One could take a view about the appropriateness of how my constituent went about this matter. One could criticise that and say that it was not right, but questions have to be raised about the fact that those actions were criminalised to the extent that they were, and that the police decided to act in the way they did and used the resources they used, which is why the matter has come to this Chamber. This is a fundamental issue in the wider context of our legal system. As a practising lawyer, I have concerns, but this should be of great concern to all Members.
	I do not need to remind the House of the recent super-injunction controversy and the complexity added to that by Twitter and the open-platform social media that provide a forum. The key issue in that debate was not merely the affairs and the scandals, but the fact that
	our legal system sought to support, or some would say protect, those individuals of some privilege who were able, through wealth and influence, to seek to protect their reputations and their future incomes, regardless in some respects of the consequences and the human collateral damage.
	It appears that my constituent’s experience is not an isolated one, since having secured this debate I was contacted by Dr Howard Fredrics, who is similarly charged with harassment because of a website exposing misconduct by officials at Kingston university. Even though, as I am also informed, Kingston police found no evidence of harassment, the Crown Prosecution Service went ahead with a case against Dr Fredrics, just as the CPS decided not to take account of Sussex police advice and a case was mounted against Mr Puddick. In both cases the common factor seems to be people and institutions of influence, and one would have to say that the concept of the rule of law has been challenged. Those are two examples, but there may be more, which might have gone unnoticed because of the under-reporting of magistrates court cases. The reason for this debate is that they should not go unnoticed by this House or the Government.
	The disproportionate response to my constituent’s case raises fundamental questions, and we cannot cast them aside as an operational blip. The reaction casts a shadow over the way in which we respond to issues, not least issues of free speech. These issues are becoming much more complex, but they are so important. That applies to matters on the internet and online, and matters outside and offline.
	The issues raised by my constituent’s case, which relate to free speech and the way in which the prosecuting authorities deal with enforcement, particularly in respect of the internet, are important and of wider significance. When dealing with cases of cyber-stalking or online harassment, it is important to consider how enforcement is applied and how the guidance really does affect these issues.
	We need to recognise that there is no suggestion that Mr Puddick’s comments on his website were untrue. The prosecution because of his comments relied on the argument that the repetition and spreading of the factual points amounted to harassment. It is important for me to make it clear that I entirely agree with the Government’s policy and approach to this issue. The case law and policy make it clear that harassment is illegal online as much as it is illegal offline. We learn of some awful cases of cyber-stalking, and they should properly be prosecuted and punishable with the full force of the criminal law. If an individual persistently contacts or attempts to contact a victim and the court concludes that that conduct constitutes harassment, the police need to follow through proportionately to where the evidence leads them and a prosecution needs to follow, where appropriate. That should happen regardless of whether such behaviour occurs in person or through online social media.
	I recognise that sound guidance is in place on dealing with cyber-stalking and harassment. I invite the Minister to consider, after this debate, whether that guidance is fit for purpose and whether it is appropriate, particularly given how it seems to have been wholly misapplied in the case of Ian Puddick. The Government are rightly examining areas of vulnerability in respect of young people and those with disabilities, who need particular
	protection when it comes to dealing with the internet. We need to recognise that we have a particularly strong duty to those people, and it is right that the Government, in applying the guidance, are examining those areas. We also need to ensure that the fundamental principle of the equality of the law is applied across the board.
	As is clear from the account that I have given, it is clear that the proper guidance and way to apply that guidance is far removed from what happened in Mr Puddick’s case. He was told that he was not allowed to put up his website because it, in effect, damaged the reputation of another individual and that that damage amounted to illegal harassment. Since this case has reached the public gaze, several commentators have remarked that if Mr Puddick had been found guilty, the floodgates would have been opened for a number of other such claims.
	I am sure that other hon. Members, perhaps in an unguarded moment, would be tempted by the possibility of prosecuting the odd blogger who wrote an article about them with which they disagreed. I have had an attack website constructed against me. It is dedicated to opposing me and, some would say, to damaging my reputation, and colleagues would doubtless be able to give examples of different actions that have taken place. However, many of us would also recognise that there is a role and place for the law, including the civil law—there is no doubt that the law on libel and defamation has a role to play. I welcome the Government’s review into super-injunctions, which is examining how we can properly ensure that our approach to these whole areas of privacy, and libel and defamation are made fit for the modern-day purpose. I would also welcome a proper look at the current Crown Prosecution Service guidelines and how they apply in all the different circumstances.
	I am calling for a level playing field—the level playing field that has been established over many years and that this country, rightly, is proud to promote and apply. I hope that my constituent’s case will set a precedent or at least be a marker to suggest that such websites and blogs should be properly considered in the context of an appropriate and proportionate application of guidance in both criminal and civil law. It is important that, as online technology develops rapidly, we ensure that the Government also allow for proper clarity in their guidance so that we do not face situations such as that which sadly caused detriment to Mr Puddick.
	We also need to be particularly watchful when criminal law is involved. Cases such as Mr Puddick’s might be rare—we do not have the exact numbers—but we need to recognise that when there is enforcement by the police, liberty is lost and other consequences arise, we must be ever watchful and mindful of the serious repercussions and how they can chip away at, or even take a chunk out, of the fundamental principles that we all hold dear.
	In conclusion, the issue in this case is not the affair that some people might have been interested in reporting on, and it is not about my constituent and his phone calls to clients. This is not about the man or the affair. The issue is whether Ian Puddick has made the case that large companies and private security firms have an influence that has led to a taxpayer-funded police force following what some might suggest was a taxpayer-funded crusade. Indeed, it was called Operation Bohan—I am not sure why it was named after Bohan, the son of
	Rueben—and the whole operation was dedicated to this case, seemingly to silence his accusations because they might harm financial interests.
	One could argue that if the complaint had been made to the City of London police by an ordinary member of the public—say, a plumber like my constituent—the estimated £1 million would not have been spent investigating and prosecuting the case. It would, I imagine, have been dealt with as a civil matter, worthy, if the police had been involved, of a quiet word from them. I say that the £1 million is an estimated figure, and Mr Puddick has been asking questions to find out the true costs. If possible, I would be interested in hearing at some point—I know the answer will not be available today—how much the police operation and prosecution cost.
	Without any further information, it would seem that Operation Bohan flew in the face of the key principle of equality before the law by seemingly putting the interests of wealthy organisations above the free speech and basic rights of the everyday citizen. I do not say those words lightly. I have been a criminal solicitor for 14 or so years and have great respect for the rule of law, for our system of justice and for how it is properly applied day in, day out, by police officers and prosecuting authorities. When we see cases that seem exceptional and that are exceptional in their application of power, we must stand up for our constituents. It is worse for everyone, not just my constituent, that the operation was funded by the taxpayer. My tax-paying constituents—all of them—played their part in paying for the anti-terrorist officers, the high-technology laboratory and the extensive surveillance. Indeed, they also played a part in the Crown Prosecution Service’s seemingly doomed attempt to prosecute Mr Puddick.
	My constituent is concerned about what he would call an apparent perversion of natural justice that must be identified, addressed and appropriately challenged by Ministers. The Government and the Minister are rightly big on accountability and I fully support that, but we also need to recognise that there must be accountability for the actions of the police and the prosecuting authorities. They must be brought to account in cases such as Mr Puddick’s so that we can ensure that another innocent member of the public is not awoken by an armed counter-terrorism unit acting, perhaps, on the whims of wealth and power.

Nick Herbert: First, let me congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes) on securing the debate, which it is a pleasure for me to respond to on behalf of the Government. I know of his long-standing interest in these issues, particularly on ensuring that freedom of expression is protected and I fully understand why he seeks to raise his concerns about the case of his constituent, Mr Ian Puddick. I appreciate that my hon. Friend seeks to put the case for his constituent very forcefully, which he has certainly done.
	I know that my hon. Friend understands that Ministers do not have a role in commenting on or interfering in specific cases, but it is important to restate that point. In this country we have a principle of operational independence for the police and it is very important that Ministers do not seek to direct police investigations or to comment on them improperly. However, it is also very important
	that we have a proper system of accountability for the police and their actions in relation to the law and more widely. I will return to that point. I am afraid that I cannot therefore comment on the legal aspects of this individual case, but I understand that the City of London police took the allegation of harassment against Mr Puddick very seriously and that it was investigated in line with national procedures.
	I also understand that the City of London police received a complaint last September relating to the conduct of officers involved in Mr Puddick’s arrest on suspicion of harassment in August 2009. Following a thorough internal investigation the force’s professional standards directorate found no misconduct. Mr Puddick was informed of that decision last December and had the right to appeal to the Independent Police Complaints Commission. I do not know whether he has pursued that course, but my hon. Friend might wish to contact him and help him in that regard. We have a formal complaints procedure whereby the conduct of police forces can be properly investigated precisely to deal with situations in which people feel they have been improperly treated by the police. Having the IPCC means that such complaints and police forces can be independently investigated quite separately from Government, as is proper, but there might be reasons why Mr Puddick has not taken that course.

David Burrowes: I am grateful for the Minister’s response and I will certainly follow up the details of my constituent’s complaint. My presumption is that the progress of his complaint was subject to the fact that proceedings were ongoing, but they have recently been concluded and he will now be able to pursue many avenues. The problem he has probably encountered is that his complaint is not like usual complaints about how people have been treated in detention or on arrest, but is more of a systemic issue about an operational decision that was taken, and so he might find it harder to get to the truth. I therefore invite the Minister to make inquiries into why, given the facts of the case, the decision about Operation Bohan was taken.

Nick Herbert: My hon. Friend is seeking to draw me into precisely the sort of comment about individual investigations that I am prohibited from making. Nevertheless, I will say that it strikes me that this case would merit an appeal to the IPCC. I might be wrong about that and will ensure that I follow up the debate by sending him formal advice on whether that remains an option for Mr Puddick.
	My hon. Friend referred to the involvement of counter-terrorist officers in the case, which the media also reported on. I can confirm that the investigation was run by the force’s major investigation team, which, although it was set up primarily to deal with major crime, occasionally deals with cases outside its remit to relieve pressure on other departments within the force. The team sits within the force’s serious crime and counter-terrorist directorate, which might explain the confusion and the suggestion that counter-terrorist officers were involved in the investigation.
	I know that my hon. Friend will agree that, when the police receive an allegation of a crime, they should consider it properly. Indeed, they are required within
	the rules set out to record it. The offence of harassment can cause the victim great distress, and the police are committed to responding in a timely manner when they receive such reports. My comments in this respect are not to be taken as an endorsement of the police action in this case, but I think that we would all agree with the general principle that it is proper for the police to respond to and investigate such claims.
	The internet has hugely enriched our lives and every Member of the House is fully aware of its potency, but it can also be a useful tool for those seeking to abuse and intimidate their victims, and it is a source of particular concern to the Government that a new opportunity for crime has been created through cyber-bullying, cyber-stalking and such harassment of victims. The abuse can continue for long periods, with no refuge for the person on the receiving end of the harassment, and can involve a much bigger audience, with more people becoming accessories to the harassment by forwarding offensive messages and images, making it difficult to identify the perpetrator. For all those reasons, the Government are very concerned about the growth of this form of criminality and are seeking to deal with it.
	Let me be clear that we have no plans to block legal internet content or websites. Our view on published material is that it is important to strike a balance between freedom of expression and protection of the public and that it should be proportional to the potential harm that might be caused. In other words, it is important that the action we take, and indeed the action of those who enforce the law, is proportionate, which is precisely the word my hon. Friend used. We are making progress in this area and there will be a ministerial seminar next week on personal harm on the internet, which will focus on the two key themes of cyber-stalking and hate crime. It is important that we continue to make progress in this area. Nevertheless, I strongly agree with the principle of equality before the law, as my hon. Friend set out. It is important that police forces in this country are impartial and act without fear or favour, and he is right to restate that principle.
	My hon. Friend is correct to say that I am big on accountability, and so are the Government. We seek to ensure that police forces are accountable—of course—to the law for their actions, and they are in the case before us. I mentioned recourse to the IPCC, and should Mr Puddick believe that the police behaved unlawfully in his case he also has recourse to legal action. I make no comment on whether that is the case, but the police are not above the law.
	The police should also be accountable for their actions, and we seek to strengthen the democratic oversight of policing, but that does not extend to interference in operational independence, because that principle must remain. We are, however, going to give directly elected police and crime commissioners an important role in the oversight of police complaints—not to receive complaints directly, because that will still be a matter for the IPCC, but to ensure that forces generally deal with complaints properly.
	I regret that that measure will not be applicable to the City of London police, because it is the one force to which we will not be introducing directly elected police and crime commissioners, but I am sure that the force itself and the authority that holds it to account will watch carefully the developments in our legislation.
	On the cost of the investigation, my hon. Friend cited the sum of £1 million. I am not sure whether he thought that that was the cost of the police investigation and the Crown Prosecution Service investigation, but the City of London police state that the £1.5 million cost that was ascribed to the investigation, was very wide of the mark. I am not able to respond to his suggested cost for the combined operation of the police and the CPS, but I am happy to ask that the City of London police and the CPS provide that information to my hon. Friend. Importantly, the CPS would of course have had to agree to the charges that were brought before the courts and, in doing so, have taken the view that a prosecution was in the public interest, so the actions that were taken were a matter not just for the police, but for the CPS.
	Without trespassing further on the detail of the case, I fully understand my hon. Friend’s concern about the matter and, indeed, respect the fact that he has brought it to the attention of the House. I hope he understands that I cannot interfere, but I hope also that I have provided some useful information.

David Burrowes: I am grateful for the Minister’s response. He will be aware, because I have raised the matter with him before, and agree that what is needed among other things in our justice system is information. Indeed, in the words of the Victims Commissioner, relentless information is a real driver of change and of accountability, and one aspect of that is the reporting of magistrates court cases, which often go unnoticed. I have raised two examples, but in that area as in others the benefits of more information will raise the stakes on accountability and ensure that Ministers are as aware as others of whether there is a prevalence of such cases and of the actions that could lead to criticism and to operational changes.
	I therefore ask the Minister to have an eye for that, as well as just to—

Dawn Primarolo: Briefly.

David Burrowes: I will just raise one other matter concerning internet crime, which is the subject of the debate. I welcome ministerial involvement in the seminars on hate crime, which is a real concern. There is a particular prevalence of anti-Semitism on the internet, and I know that Ministers are taking on work from the previous Government in that area.

Nick Herbert: I strongly agree about the importance of transparency. The criminal justice system is relatively opaque, but this week the Government have announced further moves to increase transparency. One area in which we wish to do that is the criminal justice system, and I am working on such proposals because I believe that justice must be seen to be done. I hope that my hon. Friend will take a continuing interest in that and will encourage us in our efforts.
	I am grateful to my hon. Friend for supporting our action on hate crime, and I know that he understands the importance of dealing with it. In respect of this case and the issues that my hon. Friend raises, it is very important that we and the law strike the appropriate balance. Free speech is an important freedom that must be protected to the greatest extent possible, but it cannot be permitted if harm is done to others. The law exists in order sometimes to curtail the operation of free speech where such harm may be done. That is why we have a harassment law. It is right that our law enforcement agencies focus on areas where people may be bullied, harassed or subject to intimidation and threats, and that includes through the new medium of the internet. It is appropriate that our law enforcement agencies take action according to the laws that have been set out by Parliament. It equally behoves those agencies to behave in a proper and proportionate manner.
	Question put and agreed to.
	House adjourned.